[Anthony 🐜 Joined: Jul 26th, 2013 Topics: 47 Posts: 2617 View Predictions]

#1203700580

1. Jim Parsons
2. Mayim Bialik
3. Simon Helberg
4. Kunal Nayyar
5. Johnny Galecki
6. Melisa Rauch
7. Kaley Cuoco

Reply

[Anthony 🐜 Joined: Jul 26th, 2013 Topics: 47 Posts: 2617 View Predictions]

#1203692231

The funny thing is that voters watch Ozark every year but it does not win shit. Anyway I’m just preparing y’all (Ozark stans ) to not get your hopes up.

Apart from Vikash Patel (“Fire Pink”) who I think would be a very deserving Drama Picture Editing winner this year, I don’t see how Ozark suddenly becomes an Emmy sweeper.

Can’t wait for the rationale that will be laid out after its dismal Creative Arts Emmy performance.

Reply

[Anthony 🐜 Joined: Jul 26th, 2013 Topics: 47 Posts: 2617 View Predictions]

#1203691879

Gabriel Seehorn (gabspss) wrote:

I have a friend who knows a lot of writing voters and she heard a lot of people voting for the “On the Run” episode from WWDITS. I have this in 2nd now. Not much love for Good Place out there.

Basically what I said weeks ago. Stefani Robinson coming for that upset.

WWDITS is winning Picture Editing as well.

Reply

[Anthony 🐜 Joined: Jul 26th, 2013 Topics: 47 Posts: 2617 View Predictions]

#1203688931

hopelesstar wrote:

It will.

Yeah….Ozark will. Empty. Zero. Zilch.

I’m betting on Colman winning the Emmy she was touted to win the very moment her casting as Queen Elizabeth II was announced.

Reply

[Anthony 🐜 Joined: Jul 26th, 2013 Topics: 47 Posts: 2617 View Predictions]

#1203687431

methaddiction wrote:

I just think Aniston and Crudup are way more likely to be the acting winners for that show Carell winning and not them would be strange because I don’t see the show winning two acting awards let alone three.

I have Martin Short being the only acting win for The Morning Show. And he is at the bottom of the odds on Gold Derby for Guest Drama Actor, which is weird. He fits the traditional winner in this category.

Reply

[Anthony 🐜 Joined: Jul 26th, 2013 Topics: 47 Posts: 2617 View Predictions]

#1203674719

Couverture wrote:

The fumes…

The delusion

[Anthony 🐜 Joined: Jul 26th, 2013 Topics: 47 Posts: 2617 View Predictions]

#1203674706

TheCineMike wrote:

I am also predicting Succession for Best Drama but Ozark should not be count out up until we see what’s going to happen in the Creative Arts.

LOL. What is all this?

What’s gonna happen at the Creative Arts Emmys is what has always happened for Ozark: It’s walking away with exactly ZERO Creative Arts Emmys. People on here acting like Ozark has been winning Creative Arts awards left and right for the past two years. The show has literally won TWO Emmys its entire run (Directing and Supporting Actress). It’s not even competitive to win a single Creative Arts Emmy. Not the supposed important Cinematography Emmy, not the surprise Make-up nomination that apparently makes it a stronger contender than Succession, nada.

And after it loses every Creative Arts Emmy it is nominated for, y’all are gonna find another reason to try and justify an Ozark upset that is just not there.

[Anthony 🐜 Joined: Jul 26th, 2013 Topics: 47 Posts: 2617 View Predictions]

#1203635204

Luca wrote:

Isn’t that just as bad as one of the two white women in limited actress winning when there are three deserving women of color nominated?

Look, I completely agree with you. But believe me that there will be comments if Watchmen sweeps but doesn’t pick up either one of lead actress and supp. actor. I, too, would see nothing wrong with it, unless deserving people of color are snubbed across the board. And you’re right, it could very possibly be white people who are behind such comments. Don’t forget that these forums were also filled with comments that suggested that people of color only got nominated because of the climate, an argument I’ve always absolutely hated. I hated it when Viola Davis won her Emmy; I hated it when all of four of 2018’s guest acting races went to actors of color; and I will hate it now too. We’ll never know the real reason why someone was nominated or snubbed, but people only jump to such conclusions for non-white people.

Also, for the record, I am not predicting Regina because of this climate, but because she’s in the limited series winner, a three-time Emmy champ and gives a performance that is very well liked. As I’ve said now many times, she brought it home in those final two episodes, which I am sure voters will recognize too.

I totally understand where you’re coming from, but context and proportionality has to be taken into account with stuff like this. Just as the previous poster said, King losing to Haas for example would make perfect sense in context, because she has the performance to back up a win. Even in a socially charged climate like now. Regina King would absolutely stand and cheer for a Haas win, contrary to what some people might like to believe.

It’s not the people being irked about certain black performances winning awards that’s problematic. It’s the ones (especially non blacks) that “expect” a black win just because, and if it doesn’t happen, they quickly play the race card. There’s nothing more disrespectful than a white person trying to play the black card. Like Ava DuVernay losing the Directing Emmy to a show like Chernobyl, a directing achievement through and through. Not a single black person was driven to outrage, because it makes sense. Chernobyl was one hell of a directing achievement. Yet there was a whole group of non blacks gathering to proclaim their absolute horror at a black woman losing the Emmy to a white man. Ridiculous.

When white people try to lead the outrage and race conversation on black issues, especially when black people are QUIET AND INDIFFERENT TO WHATEVER THE OUTRAGE IS, that’s irksome and incredibly pretentious.

[Anthony 🐜 Joined: Jul 26th, 2013 Topics: 47 Posts: 2617 View Predictions]

#1203635151

Luca wrote:

I am surprised someone would have to spell it out.

Are you serious?

Regina King is not the only black nominee at this year’s Emmys. Please do not turn her into the Denzel Washington and Viola Davis of TV awards. There are 33 other black nominees that are just as worthy to win Emmys this year. King losing an Emmy while other black actors and creatives are awarded will not look bad. Especially to us blacks. I don’t know about white people, hopefully they don’t manufacture outrage on our behalf. As usual.

4. Comedy Supporting Actor is what’s going to look ugly optics wise if out of 5 black nominees a white actors wins. That’s ugly optics.

[Anthony 🐜 Joined: Jul 26th, 2013 Topics: 47 Posts: 2617 View Predictions]

#1203628889

9 wrote:

You were the one who said that Gunn owned her category.

My original post:
Repeat winners being the prevailing theme of Drama Supporting Emmys (Maggie Smith, Anna Gunn, Peter Dinklage and Aaron Paul literally owning the category for years) leads me to believe we’re getting a repeat winner in Supporting Actress.

I even put them all in brackets. You sure love to pick apart things and choose one aspect to run away with, hey? THEY owned that category.

9 wrote:

As mentioned, Fleabag won the guild. It only missed the Emmy nomination because it came out too late. You are giving the Emmy voters way too much credit if you think that they are just voting on merit.

LOL. Let’s not. It was snubbed. Since it was the only one from the 5 guild nominees missing. The Kominsky Method got the nomination over it. 9 Emmy nominations for Fleabag does not an underseen show make. And the point still stands. It missing the Emmy nomination for Sound Mixing and thus not maximizing its nomination haul (as per your rules) didn’t factor into its eventual win. You’re grabbing at straws trying to justify your prediction of an Ozark Drama Series win. You are trying to give the impression that most Emmy voters are stupid and just name-check nominees for the heck of it.

9 wrote:

Sounds like you did not see it either.

Luckily i did. And i can thus fullheartedly take you on when you try to spin things to make it sound like we are heading for a nailbiting finish for Drama Series, when we really are not. Ozark apparently being almost neck and neck with Succession, because of below the line nominations that have no proportionality to them. Funny you didn’t follow this line of thinking last year when you predicted When They See Us to win Limited Series and Directing.

Let’s move on.

[Anthony 🐜 Joined: Jul 26th, 2013 Topics: 47 Posts: 2617 View Predictions]

#1203628747

ENGLAND wrote:

I truly do not understand the Tom Pelphrey snub.

Most likely just visibility for the most part. Makes me believe this season of Ozark was widely underseen by the acting peer group.

Knowing the Emmys, watch him grab his Emmy nomination (and probable win) next year when they do catch up on this season.

[Anthony 🐜 Joined: Jul 26th, 2013 Topics: 47 Posts: 2617 View Predictions]

#1203627487

hopelesstar wrote:

Anna Gunn has only won 2 times, and for the final parts of Breaking Bad, how was she owning her category?

I know Maggie Smith traumatized Lena Headey’s stans, but she has only won 3 times and not even consecutively. Let’s not rewrite history and pretend she kept repeating for years. Same thing for Aaron, only 3 non consecutive wins. Furthermore, they (and Anna Gunn) won under the previous system.

The only one that fits what you are saying is Dinklage.

I don’t know what part of “Repeat winners” didn’t click with you, or where in my post did I even mention the word “consecutively”. But I’ll say it again. Repeat winners. As in they repeated their wins. Once, sometimes 4 times. Regardless what voting system was used. Or which season they were awarded for.

Come on now

[Anthony 🐜 Joined: Jul 26th, 2013 Topics: 47 Posts: 2617 View Predictions]

#1203627470

Jeffrey Wright getting nominations for Supporting, then Lead, now Supporting again just proves the guy is highly respected and has a huge fan base within the Television Academy. And with everyone and their momma complaining that he either didn’t do anything this season to he got that nomination for that “one scene”, and yet still grabbed a coveted nomination, tells me he’s getting votes. A lot of votes.

With a category that doesn’t have a clear front-runner and possible vote splitting playing a role, I believe he could be the beneficiary.

Repeat winners being the prevailing theme of Drama Supporting Emmys (Maggie Smith, Anna Gunn, Peter Dinklage and Aaron Paul literally owning the category for years) leads me to believe we’re getting a repeat winner in Supporting Actress.

Julie Garner vs Thandie Newton. Maybe even Samira Wiley, cause Lord knows there must be a reason why she got a nomination over her two bigger costars.

All recognizable previous winners, they are the only returning previous winners for their respective roles. Very dangerous kind of nominees for this category. Familiar names to just check off on the ballot. As usual.

[Anthony 🐜 Joined: Jul 26th, 2013 Topics: 47 Posts: 2617 View Predictions]

#1203627424

9 wrote:

They might not make a difference, but I think that going point by point misses the point, which is that there was a surplus of support for Ozark below the line and there was not for Succession. Nobody is saying that Succession needs cinematography or title design nominations to win, but Ozark maxing out in cinematography after missing last year and getting makeup was unexpected. It could just be like Barry versus Fleabag last year where Barry randomly got into score and Fleabag still won or it could be illustrative like the Chernobyl win over Game of Thrones for production design that this is a train that cannot be stopped.

Taking one point to try and make a point while dismissing other relevant points is what is actually pointless.

If we’re now gonna jump to below the line support being a factor, shouldn’t we look at them objectively? As in, Succession didn’t submit any episodes to Contemporary Make-up, because why would they?

And comparing the Sound Mixing nominations for Ozark’s “All In” vs Succession’s non-nomination for “This Is Not For Tears” is crazy, considering we can clearly see (and hear) why an episode like “All In” would get a Sound Mixing nomination. And why “This Is Not For Tears” didn’t and probably would not get a nomination.

It’s like asking why a show like Fleabag didn’t get a Comedy Half Hour Sound Mixing nomination last year. It’s ridiculous, because what Sound Mixing heavy work could possibly be nominated for a show like Fleabag? What lack of support could a miss in Sound Mixing possibly prove for Fleabag?

Looking at the nominations for Cinematography, and how well we know what type of work usually gets nominated for awards like that, is anyone surprised that Succession’s “Hunting” and “This Is Not For Tears” didn’t get Cinematography nominations???? ANYONE? I mean like SERIOUSLY? Was the cinematographers chapter/branch just supposed to check off those two episodes to show support for the Succession overall? Compared to the DP work of The Crown, Marvelous Mrs Maisel and Westworld?

Or are we going to nitpick about Costume Design or Hairstyling nominations that certain shows didn’t get?

Succession maximized in acting, attaining a surplus of support for its cast with 9 acting nominations. Which Ozark couldn’t do. Maybe Fleabag, Game of Thrones, Chernobyl doing the same on their way to Series wins is illustrative of support for Series winners? Maybe that’s a train on its way.

I would say jumping from 5 nominations to 18 above and below the line is indicative of broad enough support for the show.

[Anthony 🐜 Joined: Jul 26th, 2013 Topics: 47 Posts: 2617 View Predictions]

#1203627351

Tyler wrote:

isnt the more apt comparison Succession is Fleabag to Ozark’s Barry?

Correct. And that would mean Succession wins. And right now that is not what people want to hear or believe on Gold Derby.