-
-
I guess because I’ve kind of been regarding The Crown as following a similar path to its first season with the biggest name winning whilst the Queen is held back by stronger competition. But then hearing you guys talk about stuff like the difference in release dates for Ozark and Succession and how The Crown doesn’t really have any buzz at this point (something I have also believed) something switched in my mind on it. I suppose it’s because, even though The Crown got the same number of nominations as it’s first season and the same single pair of acting nods, it also had special attention because it was a first season show that voters hadn’t dealt with before. So the difference is that I think by this point, despite the new cast, voters expect The Crown to be good and sturdy in its acting so there’s nothing new or exciting there. I think also what you said Riley about HBC being someone everyone would just know to be good in the role resonated with me as even with John Lithgow there was that sense of transformation that gave extra incentive to pick him.
As for why I’ve switched to Garner, I already had her in a close second and I think the fact that she won last year and now Ozark is even stronger than it was then would make it strange if she now lost out to the third, maybe fourth most buzzed performance on Succession.
ReplyCopy URLWow I’ve been actively rooting for Jim Parsons but that first slugfest almost had me hoping he loses. Thought Tony’s “thank you for playing really bad analogy” was in quite poor taste, especially when it was towards the only one of you who was actually trying to think of alternatives to Parsons. Can imagine you only took it in your stride, Riley, but I personally think what’s the point in having a slugfest if you’re not going to even consider the possibility of surprises
ReplyCopy URL
Limited/Movie Writing & Directing (20 minutes)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
