We knew when it aired that ”Ozymandias” was an incredible episode in all ways. And many people though that it will gain Cranston the 4th Emmy he’s been looking for. And finally it did. But what if Cranston went with the finale? Would have won anyways? Would have McConaughey won instead?
After his third win when many felt that he did not have the best tape, Cranston was unable to win until his tape was undeniably the best.
Felina was a good episode, but it wasn’t as centred on his performance like Ozymandias was. His performance in Ozymandias elevated him above McConaughey’s movie star narrative, where Felina just wouldn’t have.
The Emmys wanted to award Cranston really badly. Plus he submitted the best tape of his category leading him to a win that will be remembered as one of the most memorable ones. The guy has such crazy industry support and respect, it’s kinda crazy. I wish Paul Thomas Anderson would cast him in a There Will Be Blood type of film so he could get that much deserved Oscar.
No he would not. He was good in the episode but it would not be enough for him to win.
No and I always felt like “Granite State” would’ve been the alternate pick for him and not “Felina”.
Yes. He’s in basically every scene, and still has some real money moments. It’s clear that just about everyone wanted Breaking Bad to win big that night, and that True Detective wasn’t gonna make the splash we thought. Unless McConaughey also gets to change, in his case to a better submission, then there’s some debate.