June 18, 2012 at 2:24 pm #246523
I am surprised how high Louis C.K.’s odds are of getting nominated.
I’m not saying that Louis C.K. won’t be nominated, or that his chances of being nominated aren’t good, but his chances shouldn’t be that high (higher than 4-time nominee Larry David, and just below 5-time nominee/2-time winner Alec Baldwin and 3-time nominee/2-time winner/current reigning champ Jim Parsons).
Last year, Louis C.K. he was a surprise nominee, and didn’t win. What guarantees that he’ll be coming back? What makes him a more likely nominee this year than say Johnny Galecki who was also nominated for the first time last year? The Big Bang Theory has only been gaining momentum at the Emmys, with last year’s nomination in the Best Comedy Series race, and Parsons’ 2nd consecutive win for Lead Comedy Actor. All of this exposure for the show will certainly help Galecki’s chances at a nomination. Also, Johnny Galecki was nominated for a Golden Globe this year for The Big Bang Theory, while Louis C.K. was not.
Any particular reason why so many people are predicting a nomination for Louis C.K. over Jon Cryer, who has been nominated every year for the past 6 years (in supporting), even when just about every one of those years, Emmy pundits predicted Cryer either wouldn’t win or wouldn’t be nominated? Also, it should not be forgotten that this year was the first time Jon Cryer received a SAG nomination for his work onTwo and a Half Men. Louis C.K. has no SAG nominations.
Yes, Louis C.K. has been nominated 8 times at the Emmys, but 7 of these nominations were for writing. Only 1 of his nominations was for acting.
And it’s not like Louis C.K. is a lock because there’s not enough competition out there. There are plenty of performances that could likely get nominated.
One name not enough people are considering is Warwick Davis, star of Life’s Too Short, co-created with Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, whose last show together won Ricky Gervais the Lead Comedy Actor Emmy in 2007 in a very surprising upset.
Will Arnett has a good chance at a nomination, as the Emmys have already shown their love to him with 1 supporting actor nomination forArrested Development and 3 guest acting nominations for his appearances on 30 Rock.
Garrett Dillahunt could also squeeze in, after Martha Plimpton and Cloris Leachman’s nominations last year for Raising Hope (Dillahunt could benefit from the exposure of his castmates’ submission tapes, much like how Johnny Galecki, Ed O’Neill, Charlie Sheen, Jon Cryer, Brad Garrett, Michael Richards, Jennifer Aniston, Matt LeBlanc, Matthew Perry, Kristen Johnston, Will Arnett, Bryan Cranston, Kim Cattrall, Cynthia Nixon, and Kristin Davis, to name a few, have all received nominations after co-stars were nominated)
Ed Helms could also get in, as his role on The Office has definitely increased this past season, and perhaps voters may feel the need to fill the void on the Emmy ballot left by Steve Carell with the current lead from The Office.
Don Cheadle and/or Elijah Wood could be in the mix as well. The Emmys have nominated well-known movie actors that have crossed over to film (Alec Baldwin, Steve Carell, Hugh Laurie, etc.)
Tim Allen could get in, similar to how Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Lisa Kudrow, and John Ritter (among others) have all been nominated for different shows than the ones they won for (the only difference is that Tim Allen never won an Emmy for Home Improvement, the others mentioned did win Emmys for their respective shows before their next roles got nominated).
Joel McHale is seen as overdue for a nomination for Community, and could finally get in.
So, any particular reason other than “the buzz is red-hot” why Louis C.K. is a more likely nominee than Larry David, Johnny Galecki, or Jon Cryer (or perhaps even some others)?
I don’t like the argument that Louis C.K. is safe this year because the category is less competitive than last year’s or that “with Steve Carell and Matt LeBlanc not eligible this year, there are now two open slots,” leading one to believe that if there are two open slots, that anyone who has in last year that is eligible this year is guaranteed to get in. This argument can almost immediately be followed up with “Larry David is back this year, and 6-time supporting nominee Jon Cryer is switching to lead this year,” so you could say that: 1) there are no open slots; 2) Louis C.K. and Johnny Galecki are not guaranteed to get in just because they were nominated last year (take a look at Matthew Morrison, whom many were predicting would get in last year just because he was nominated the year before); and 3) with many strong contenders, every possible nominee will have to fight just to get in (with the exception of Jim Parsons, and possibly Alec Baldwin).June 18, 2012 at 3:31 pm #246525
Because last year’s nomination was considered a surprise which proved that the academy is watching and appreciate the work he is doing. Follow it up with the fact he is a previous Emmy winner and the fact that Season 2 of Louie was better, extremely well-received, and he is completely deserving says a lot. Plus, it is only his second year so he doesn’t have to compete with the prospect of possibly overstaying his welcome in the eyes of voters and he is kind of the hip choice, which Emmy voters have been prone to go for in the past few years. I would argue him not being nominated would be a greater snub than if Larry David or Alec Baldwin didn’t land a nomination. Comparing Louie in Season 2 to Glee in season to is a specious argument. Louie’s buzz has only went up while Glee was expected to lose nominations after the overhyped and overrated show proved to be just that in their sophomore season. People are anticipating Louie to to garner a Directing and Series nomination now (and is the front runner for directing). And there is no such thing as a lock but it would be harder for the academy to justify not including him than it would be for nearly every other person you included.June 18, 2012 at 3:51 pm #246526
Why is this ridiculous argument considered necessary for a thread?June 18, 2012 at 3:56 pm #246527
I agree that this should be in the comedy thread, but whatever.
I think he’s a lock for a nomination, but not the win by a long shot.June 18, 2012 at 6:25 pm #246528
Copy and paste this in the comedy thread and I’ll discuss it there. (I agree with you on some levels)June 18, 2012 at 7:00 pm #246529
He is hilarious, he is well liked, he is the greatest living stand-up, his show is incredible, he is incredible on the show, voters seem to be watching the show, he received surprise nods that nobody expected for his stand-up special last year and they will want him there to present after the tragedy that was last year’s lineup of presenters. That, in a nutshell, is why he is a lock for multiple nominations.June 18, 2012 at 7:16 pm #246530
Louie will get the nomination, he is certainly not a lock for the win. People on these boards don’t seem to approve all the choices the producers made in their recent submissions, though.June 18, 2012 at 7:50 pm #246531
You’ve asked a Great Mystery of Life, Daniel. Why is this guy whose brand of ‘comedy’ borders a little on anarchy, or anti-comedy, even considered for any award? It’s not a lack of options in lead actor, comedy. You can easily have the BBT guys (Galecki and Parsons), Adam Scott, Ed O’Neill, Joel McHale and Don Cheadle and have a strong as hell category and nobody would miss him. Chalk it up to a temporary lack of sanity that allows CK to be considered for Emmys.June 18, 2012 at 8:07 pm #246532
Louis CK got surprise love last year from the Emmys; thus, he seems to be in a good position to repeat his noms and even gain more noms (such as Louie for Series). I don’t think think there’s a win though.June 18, 2012 at 10:20 pm #246533
Why? Because he is funny, he is a fine writer, outstanding director, his show is brilliant, at the end, isn’t comedy all about fun and amusement? that’s what Louie is, best work I’ve seen since Jerry Seinfeld, and C.K. is a much much better version of him.June 19, 2012 at 3:03 am #246534
I don’t think Louis CK is considered a lock, though he has a great chance. In a perfect world he would be, but that’s just my opinion.
But why? Probably due to the fact that he’s one of the most prolific comedians alive and it’s been awhile since we’ve had a standup comedian front a show. (Seinfeld, Romano)
Also, he is singlehandedly responsible for one of the best shows on television. He’s not infallable and he has his faults — but he literally MAKES his show from start to finish.
“Eddie” is one of the best episodes of television I’ve ever seen and it wasn’t even a tiny bit funny. It was deep and dark and I talked about it for days…it also made me uncomfortable and sad.
My question is why is Louis CK not a lock? He’s making amazing TV and deserves all of the accolades he receives.June 19, 2012 at 6:06 am #246535
You’ve asked a Great Mystery of Life, Daniel. Why is this guy whose brand of ‘comedy’ borders a little on anarchy, or anti-comedy, even considered for any award? It’s not a lack of options in lead actor, comedy. You can easily have the BBT guys (Galecki and Parsons), Adam Scott, Ed O’Neill, Joel McHale and Don Cheadle and have a strong as hell category and nobody would miss him. Chalk it up to a temporary lack of sanity that allows CK to be considered for Emmys.
Huh? You do realize he’s one of the most praised performers on tv nowdays. Nobody would miss him? I’d take him anyday over Parsons, whose shtick has worn really thin by now (Sheldon is a Niles Crane redux anyway, and Parsons is no David Hyde Pierce).
He should win even only for his love confession to Pamela at the airport.
Also, what’s wrong with anarchist comedy? Is there a guidebook all comedians should follow to the letter? If it weren’t for non-conformists like C.K. (and many others before him) we would all be treated to the same lowest common denominator shit over and over. Thank the comedy gods for someone like him.June 19, 2012 at 6:55 am #246536
Few people are at the “lock” stage even at this late date, but the reasons for Louis C.K.’s chances for a nomination being very likely have been laid out pretty clearly. I have Louis C.K. getting in alongside Alec Baldwin, Jon Cryer, Larry David, Johnny Galecki, and Jim Parsons. So quibbling over who’s ranked higher or whose odds are higher for a nod isn’t that interesting to me. Once we know who the final six are and what their submissions are, then things get exciting. I know that predicting is this site’s main game, which is fine and I’m not knocking it. If for some reason someone like Ed Helms had been ranked higher than Louis C.K. or Alec Baldwin and was somehow given “lock” status, then there would have been cause for alarm. But for this? I don’t think so. Those other guys have greater obstacles to landing a nod than the main six. It probably won’t be that “neat” in the end, but they’re just predictions. And I’d agree that this should have been placed in the comedy predictions thread.June 19, 2012 at 9:54 am #246537
I haven’t read anyone referring to him as a “lock”, but his nomination is likely considering the acclaim, his nomination last year and the blahness of the category.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.