Home Forums Television Emmys: Problem of an Excess

Emmys: Problem of an Excess

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 45 total)
Created
7 months ago
Last Reply
7 months ago
44
replies
3227
views
26
users
Manav
8
wolfali
5
braydenfitzsi..
3

  • braydenfitzsimmons
    Joined:
    May 3rd, 2015
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204925338

    Black-ish did not need 4 series noms, and 12 acting noms between Ellis Ross and Anderson, year after year after year. It was a bit of a cruel joke, a lazy choice and 100% filler/guilt.

    And that filler couldn’t even extended Jenifer Lewis win worthy work. Sigh.

    ReplyCopy URL

    wilfredpickles
    Joined:
    Jul 15th, 2017
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204925407

    The difference between these cases and JLD’s is that she actually was the most deserving contender in each field she competed in.

    These forums have struggled to accept that some people simply don’t care for Veep as long as I’ve been on here, and statements like this coming up frequently make me dig my heels in further.

    Sure, for her last 2 wins JLD didn’t have much as competition from memory, and it made sense for her to win when the show was winning Series, but it should be clear how 6 in a row is boring and frustrating for the people who don’t think her performance was the best.

    ReplyCopy URL

    Manav
    Joined:
    Dec 21st, 2019
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204925426

    The difference between these cases and JLD’s is that she actually was the most deserving contender in each field she competed in.

    That’s very subjective. Anyone can argue that Peter Dinklage was the best in the category every year he won or GoT was the best or Modern Family was the best. Subjective. I would have personally given JLD 2-3 wins and called it a day.

    ReplyCopy URL

    Emmyfan
    Joined:
    Nov 26th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204925441

    And that filler couldn’t even extended Jenifer Lewis win worthy work. Sigh.

    I agree Jenifer Lewis should have about two Emmys for role as Ruby Johnson on black-ish

    ReplyCopy URL

    ejaru1810
    Joined:
    Sep 10th, 2021
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204925460

    These forums have struggled to accept that some people simply don’t care for Veep as long as I’ve been on here, and statements like this coming up frequently make me dig my heels in further.

    Sure, for her last 2 wins JLD didn’t have much as competition from memory, and it made sense for her to win when the show was winning Series, but it should be clear how 6 in a row is boring and frustrating for the people who don’t think her performance was the best.

    It’s frustrating for someone who didn’t like Veep, her performance or was rooting for someone else. But when you watch her performance, it made perfect sense why she swept the way she did (I’m one of those who said “really? Again?” everytime she repeated), then I watched Veep and honestly, she was undeniable and Veep being a stronger show than any other contender from the Lead Actress category only helped her.

    The only one who could have won over her was Amy, and as much as I liked Amy in Parks, Julia was miles better every year.

    ReplyCopy URL

    ejaru1810
    Joined:
    Sep 10th, 2021
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204925465

    I think not many call out JLD is because unlike Peter, Jim, GoT or Modern Family – She was genuinely always one of the best of her category. The other repeated winners had far superior competitors as nominees.

    Agreed, Julia was always top 2.

    ReplyCopy URL

    wolfali
    Joined:
    Sep 4th, 2018
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204925480

    These forums have struggled to accept that some people simply don’t care for Veep as long as I’ve been on here, and statements like this coming up frequently make me dig my heels in further.

    My issue of contention here isn’t that for some reason I think Julia Louis-Dreyfus “objectively” gave the best performance in her category each year she was nominated (that would just be plainly delusional even if I personally would have given her the win for each seasons of Veep). It’s more that I’m just exhausted at the constant regurgitation of the notion on this site that even if a performer gives by far the best performance in their category (as has already been given multiple times as an argument on this thread by the thread’s creator) they shouldn’t be allowed to win again on the basis that they’ve already won before.

    Awards (especially television ones) are supposed to be given to those who are the best in their field in any given year not a charitable spreading of the wealth exercise. The notion that performances that have already been nominated in the past and have won in the past shouldn’t receive anymore recognition even if they are deserving is like saying only 15 minutes of a supporting performance is worthy of an Oscar whilst the rest isn’t so therefore it shouldn’t be recognised. Television is a long form medium and the fact that some of these creatives are able to embody these characterisations after such long periods of time is miraculous in the first place never mind when a lot of them are still delivering the best work of their careers or are doing both after having had long production hiatuses (as most of these drama and comedy contenders have this year).

    It’s already bad enough as it is that under this system no one is able to win again after having lost in the past even in spite of performers like Elisabeth Moss and Claire Danes continuing to give performances that not only outmatch most of those on television in the years they’re competing but also those of their own performances on past seasons of their own shows that they’ve won Emmys for. Or when people like Bob Odenkirk and Christine Baranski (in spite of succeeding and then some in what’s arguably the most monumental task of playing two different iterations of the same character over the span of 10 to 15 years)  just because they’ve been nominated before and voters end up being more excited by newer and a lot of the time not necessarily better choices.

    FYC: Better Call Saul and The Good Fight in all categories including Bob Odenkirk, Christine Baranski and Rhea Seehorn.

    ReplyCopy URL

    Manav
    Joined:
    Dec 21st, 2019
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204925537

    My issue of contention here isn’t that for some reason I think Julia Louis-Dreyfus “objectively” gave the best performance in her category each year she was nominated (that would just be plainly delusional even if I personally would have given her the win for each seasons of Veep). It’s more that I’m just exhausted at the constant regurgitation of the notion on this site that even if a performer gives by far the best performance in their category (as has already been given multiple times as an argument on this thread by the thread’s creator) they shouldn’t be allowed to win again on the basis that they’ve already won before.

    Awards (especially television ones) are supposed to be given to those who are the best in their field in any given year not a charitable spreading of the wealth exercise. The notion that performances that have already been nominated in the past and have won in the past shouldn’t receive anymore recognition even if they are deserving is like saying only 15 minutes of a supporting performance is worthy of an Oscar whilst the rest isn’t so therefore it shouldn’t be recognised. Television is a long form medium and the fact that some of these creatives are able to embody these characterisations after such long periods of time is miraculous in the first place never mind when a lot of them are still delivering the best work of their careers or are doing both after having had long production hiatuses (as most of these drama and comedy contenders have this year).

    It’s already bad enough as it is that under this system no one is able to win again after having lost in the past even in spite of performers like Elisabeth Moss and Claire Danes continuing to give performances that not only outmatch most of those on television in the years they’re competing but also those of their own performances on past seasons of their own shows that they’ve won Emmys for. Or when people like Bob Odenkirk and Christine Baranski (in spite of succeeding and then some in what’s arguably the most monumental task of playing two different iterations of the same character over the span of 10 to 15 years) just because they’ve been nominated before and voters end up being more excited by newer and a lot of the time not necessarily better choices.

    Oh please, spare me the moral high ground lecture when I did say nothing of the sort! When did I say that “even if a performer gives by far the best performance in their category they shouldn’t be allowed to win again on the basis that they’ve already won before.”? I said Julia winning 6 on the bounce was uninspiring even if the performance is really good because there are others in the category better than her. I did not say she should not win just because she’s won before. And I mentioned that once, not “multiple times”. First read clearly what I wrote before adding 1 and 1 and making it into 11 and spare others the idealistic sermon when they have a different opinion than you.

    ReplyCopy URL

    wolfali
    Joined:
    Sep 4th, 2018
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204925553

    Oh please, spare me the moral high ground lecture when I did say nothing of the sort! When did I say that “even if a performer gives by far the best performance in their category they shouldn’t be allowed to win again on the basis that they’ve already won before.”?

    6 is way too much even if your performance is top notch. It’s not as if other nominees didn’t give Emmy worthy performances.

    FYC: Better Call Saul and The Good Fight in all categories including Bob Odenkirk, Christine Baranski and Rhea Seehorn.

    ReplyCopy URL

    Manav
    Joined:
    Dec 21st, 2019
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204925575

    Yeah, so her performance was top notch. But it was not the best in the category many years. I said “6 is way too much even if it’s top notch.” That doesn’t mean I’m saying it’s the best in the category. There can be multiple top notch performances in a category. As I said , you’ve yet again taken conclusion of something else from something else. I’ve never once said on this thread that a person should not win just because he/she’s won before. The argument with JLD is that she wasn’t the best in the category in many years. Simple. Doesn’t mean she gave poor performances. There were better Emmy worthy performances. One thing does not mean the other.

    ReplyCopy URL

    sarahvsmovies
    Joined:
    Jun 14th, 2021
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204925581

    There’s winning because of industry favoritism/laziness, then there’s winning because someone is consistently the best in their field and elevating their performance. JLD is that and deserved every win, period. Bryan Cranston won six times for BB and I never see anyone complain about that. If anything my complaint is Veep should have gotten more all-around love.

    Reality: Almost there with “Drag Race,” but then I think about all the years that Emmys snubbed the series outright at its peak, which sort of levels out the current autopilotness. I’m perfectly fine with RuPaul slaying in Reality Host year after year (though last year I would have opted for the “Top Chef” trio of hosts instead to win).

    I kind of think the Top Chef judges could have won if it wasn’t for that end-of-season scandal, which really isn’t their fault but may have shaved off the edge a great TC season had over a mid Drag Race season.

    ReplyCopy URL

    Labyrinth
    Joined:
    Feb 21st, 2021
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204925609

    Claire Danes continuing to give performances that not only outmatch most of those on television in the years they’re competing but also those of their own performances on past seasons of their own shows that they’ve won Emmys for.

    This! The quality of Homeland may have declined but her performance was consistently phenomenal and she deserved atleast 3 wins.

    ReplyCopy URL

    Couverture
    Joined:
    Jun 16th, 2019
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204925620

    Oh please, spare me the moral high ground lecture when I did say nothing of the sort! When did I say that “even if a performer gives by far the best performance in their category they shouldn’t be allowed to win again on the basis that they’ve already won before.”? I said Julia winning 6 on the bounce was uninspiring even if the performance is really good because there are others in the category better than her. I did not say she should not win just because she’s won before. And I mentioned that once, not “multiple times”. First read clearly what I wrote before adding 1 and 1 and making it into 11 and spare others the idealistic sermon when they have a different opinion than you.

    I mean you did say she gave one of the all time greatest performances in a now deleted comment so you can understand why wolfali (and others) thought what they did.

    A Negroni. Sbagliato. With Prosecco in it.

    ReplyCopy URL

    Manav
    Joined:
    Dec 21st, 2019
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204925640

    I mean you did say she gave one of the all time greatest performances in a now deleted comment so you can understand why wolfali (and others) thought what they did.

    If I did then I don’t recall. I wouldn’t say all time greatest but yeah a really great one. Still there were nominees better than her. Lisa Kudrow especially. Amy Poehler. Anyways I drop the matter. It’s just no point to try to argue JLD’s wins here.

    ReplyCopy URL

    wolfali
    Joined:
    Sep 4th, 2018
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1204925643

    Why is this in the sports forum lol.

    FYC: Better Call Saul and The Good Fight in all categories including Bob Odenkirk, Christine Baranski and Rhea Seehorn.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Why are you reporting this post? (optional):
    Not now
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 45 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
Chris B... - Nov 29, 2022
Television
wolfali - Nov 27, 2022
Television
Allan V... - Nov 22, 2022
Television