July 15, 2011 at 7:44 pm #222691
Many people this year were stunned that Jon Cryer and Mariska Hargitay returned to the Emmy voting ballots, even though this season wasn’t particularly strong for either of them.
The main upset surrounding Hargitay is that she stopped the never-nominated Katey Sagal and last year’s winner Kyra Sedgwick from gaining recognition this year.
The main upset surrounding Cryer is that he stopped Parks and Recreation breakout star Nick Offerman from receiving a nomination, as well as possible other nominees such as somebody from Community or the usually always nominated Neil Patrick Harris. Some people are also saying that Jon Cryer was nominated because the academy felt he deserved sympathy because of what Charlie Sheen did to him and the show.
Do you think Cryer and Hargitay deserved nominations? If given the opportunity, would you change the nomination ballot to include somebody else? Do Cryer and Hargitay even have episodes to be considered competitive?
Discuss.July 15, 2011 at 8:40 pm #222693
Mariska; laziness on part of Academy voters. Cryer? One last F-U to Charlie Sheen and a reward for putting up with his epic sh!ttiness that I suspect went beyond this past season. Maybe many seasons past.July 16, 2011 at 4:39 am #222694
I wasn’t shocked that Hargitay was there. It was laziness on the Academy’s part but you really can’t have it all. I’m just shocked that it was at the expense of current winner Kyra Sedgwick
Cryer should not have been shocking also. He was a past winner, nominee last year. It just so happened that the over all dislike for the show and his performance that lead to no one liking to predict him. Thinking about it, he had a better record than NPH (4 noms, winless) yet people were more shocked with NPH’s exclusion.July 16, 2011 at 9:29 pm #222695
Oh, gimme break, beausalant — Jon Cryer is FAR more deserving of a nomination than the deadpan, way-overhyped Nick Offerman — jeeeez.July 16, 2011 at 10:23 pm #222696
Sorry Tom, I can’t say I’ve watched very much of “Two and a Half Men,” since I value my soul, but I’ve watched enough to know that Nick Offerman is funnier in the slightest twitch of a facial muscle than pretty much anything on “Two and a Half Men.”July 17, 2011 at 8:06 am #222697
Tom — I don’t get how you divulge your Emmy predictions. You were pretty spot on with the Tony’s and (if I remember correctly) the Oscar’s this year, but some of your Emmy predictions really baffle me. John Slattery in last? Really? This is probably one of the only years where he can be competitive.
With that said, both Cryer and Hargitay have prettymuch run their courses on their shows. Again, if I remember correctly, Hargitay now has a record number of nominations in her category with only one win. Cryer is now going on his fifth or sixth consecutive nomination in a rather competitive category, also with only one win that happened in one of the category’s particularly weaker years. Both of them won at the height of their prime and their shows popularity, and usually by this time in a show’s run, nominations dwindle.
Comparing this to Nick Offerman and Katey Sagal. Both are fantastic performers with a lot of range (if you don’t believe that Offerman has range, watch one of the episodes he was in of George Lopez and compare it to the work he is doing now) and had their spots stolen by Cryer and Hargitay, respectively.
What is so attractive about Hargitay and Cryer’s performance anyway? Hargitay was apparently hardly in her season this year (I’m not a regular watcher, I wouldn’t know) and Cryer’s character is just so overly and incessantly pesimistic and joyless, with his unhappiness usually bringing joy to those around him (I am a regular viewer of his show, so I DO know this for sure). When you can tell me why his performance is so Emmy worthy, I will accept his nomination.July 17, 2011 at 11:11 am #222698
This really is the million dollar question, isn’t it, Beau? We are living in the middle of a Golden Age of Television. Some of the best television drama is on-air at this very moment. It’s incredible.
And yet the Emmy nominations hardly reflect that at times. That Jon Cryer and Mariska Hargitay — both whose performances were good at one point, but have since flat-lined with no hope of further development — are occupying slots that could’ve gone to a number of more-deserving contenders is a shame. Really, it is.
I wouldn’t know Nick Offerman from Adam, but as I find Raising Hope to be the Best New Comedy on television, I would’ve loved to see some love for Garret Dillahunt. I just don’t understand the voters’ logic — they seem to be over Neil Patrick Harris (and How I Met Your Mother, in general) so why not Cryer? I’m not buying that he gained voters because of Sheengate or whatever it is the miedia is calling ol’ Charlie’s meltdown.
And Hargitay’s situation is even worse. She gives a credible performance on what I am seeing more and more as a circular and uninteresting crime procedural. But this year, with so many leading ladies putting in terrific performances, I don’t understand how she beat out Anna Torv, Katey Sagal, or latest winner Kyra Sedgwick. Even Piper Perabo (spelling?) was gaining steam there near the end.
The most ridiculous inclusion, though, is Kathy Bates. I really like her. I think she can play drama and comedy with equal ease. Who would’ve thought that the nutjob from Misery could play Adam Sandler’s mom in Waterboy? Or how about her great work in About Schmidt? And wasn’t she great in that pilot of Harry’s Law? Oh wait! You probably haven’t seen the pilot episode. In fact, you probably haven’t even seen the show. And trust me, you’re not alone. I’ve never seen a second of that show. I don’t know a single human being who watches it. And I am not convinced that half the people who voted for her have seen it either. She got in with her name and her name alone.July 17, 2011 at 1:22 pm #222699
I watched the pilot of “Harry’s Law” and only the pilot. It was like a grotesque parody of a David E. Kelley show: wacky workplace environment, characters with over-the-top tics and quirks, political grandstanding in court. It was like paint-by-numbers Kelley, only Kelley seems to have completely lost any sense of character or story. He’s just recycling the same material and it’s gotten dumber.July 20, 2011 at 10:47 pm #222700
im sure had they not been nominated it would have made room for the far more deserving katy sagal and nick offermanJuly 21, 2011 at 1:33 am #222701
I don’t get how people can say that the Academy does not watch Harry’s Law. Paul McCrane got nominated for his guest work, so obviously the voters do watch it. And Kathy Bates is fantastic in that show. When a single person can make viewers return week after week to a otherwise horrible show because of that performer’s performance, that is an Emmy-worthy winner to me!July 21, 2011 at 7:01 am #222702
It makes sense that both of these actors were nominated once again. Sorry people, but it does. We have to go on the logic of: Until they are left off the ballot, they will keep getting nominated. We don’t know when will be. But apparently, not 2011.
I agree completely that Offerman and Sagal are MORE than deserving of nominations. But if they’ve never been nominated at all, we don’t know if they even would’ve registered in a top 10. Clearly there are fans of those series that frequent these sites, but voters might not know Offerman or Sagal’s performances from Adam. And there are plenty of brilliant performances and series that will never get recognized by the Emmys. It’s just a fact, so to gripe about these ‘snubs’ is a huge waste of energy.
The more interesting cases are Harris and Sedgwick being left off. True Harris never won for this role, but he won 2 Emmys last year. Sedgwick also won last year. Not that they aren’t deserving, but for whatever reason voters didn’t feel they needed to be immediately nominated again. But for all we know, they each came in a close 7th place. There just aren’t enough slots, and way too many people battling for them.July 21, 2011 at 8:36 am #222703
I think the Drama Lead Actress Top 10 Probably Went Something Like This:
1.Julianna Margulies – The Good Wife
2.Elisabeth Moss – Mad Men
3.Kathy Bates – Harry’s Law
4.Mireille Enos – The Killing
5.Connie Britton – Friday Night Lights
6.Mariska Hargitay – Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
7.Kyra Sedgwick – The Closer
8.January Jones – Mad Men
9.Katey Sagal – Sons of Anarchy
10.Anna Torv – FringeJuly 21, 2011 at 9:52 am #222704
As annoyed as I am with Jon Cryer’s nomination (I can’t stand him on 2.5 Men, a show that I’ve seen very little of because I thought it was awful), this outcry wouldn’t be happening, at least not so loudly, if the voters had exercised some self-control and not voted in ALL FOUR of the guys from Modern Family. Don’t get me wrong; they’re all great. But so are Nick Offerman, Aziz Ansari, Danny Pudi, Donald Glover, Garrett Dillahunt, and Neil Patrick Harris. I’d have switched Cryer, Chris Colfer, and at least one of those MFers to get three of the guys I just named on the list.
Kathy Bates might have gotten in on name, but the show did get enough viewership to warrant a renewal from NBC. I only saw a few minutes of it myself (I’m kind of done with David Kelley after what happened to The Practice), but I bet Bates did more to deserve a nomination than Hargitay did.
You always have to account for at least one holdover nominee who should be off the list but isn’t. It’s a shame, but it’s true. And it’s not like Kyra Sedgwick and Katey Sagal could have both taken Hargitay’s slot, so people who probably have complaints about it either way.July 27, 2011 at 9:56 am #222705
Jon Cryer is the funniest thing about Two and a Half Men. Personally, I think he is much more deserving of a nomination than Chris Colfer, who is not funny in Glee. Nick Offerman should have taken his spot.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.