You could well be right about the “doubled.” (As I’ve mentioned I haven’t watched any of the old shows in a while.)
Interesting about the malpractice rates for attorneys. The writers appear to have assumed that most viewers would believe that insurance for lawyers worked in much the same way as insurance for doctors—massively expensive and impossible to practice without.
(If the writers did assume that, it appears to have worked for them–most viewers did conclude that what Jimmy did to Chuck would keep Chuck from being able to practice law.)
They’ve won a couple of ‘Creative Arts’ Emmys, just not any of the big ones. Why? Because to slightly misquote Willem Dafoe in To Live and Die in LA, the Emmy voter’s taste is in their ass .
Due to the timing of the season, they still have a chance next year with the last six episodes. But if Rhea Seehorn is snubbed once again, there may well be blood (actually to be fair she and the show has been recognized as per the above list, just not by the Emmy crowd).
I’ve finally watched the last couple of episodes and…the ending was disappointing.
The second half of series 6 felt almost like a different show compared to the excellence of what went before. It wasn’t terrible, it just fizzled. I was left not caring that much about what happened and not being particularly surprised by how it panned out. Which was very much not my experience of the previous five and half series.
I don’t know if that was due to changes made after Bob’s illness or the writers just not quite nailing the ending.
I must concur. I wouldn’t be handing out any Emmies for the second half of season 6, Kim’s breakdown notwithstanding. But no Emmies? That ain’t right either.
Seehorn unfortunately ran into the problem that Julia Garner was up for the last season of Ozark. And as folks probably noticed, the Emmys sometimes get into a rut where they award the same show/actor/actress in a row.
Some shows just have bad luck when they are released which blocks Emmys in big categories. BCS had the misfortune of going up against the end of Game of Thrones and the beginning of Succession. (and the first season of Handmaid’s Tale). Though in 2019, GoT winning best drama was ridiculous - even then S1 of Succession probably would have beaten out BCS.
Odenkirk as well, has gone up against Jon Hamm, Rami Malek, Sterling K. Brown (this one I think he has the best argument for), Billy Porter, and Lee Jung-jae.
Seehorn hasn’t been nominated until this year, but had to deal with Julia Garner who has been an Emmy darling for Best Supporting Actress.
One would think they would have better luck next year, but House of the Dragon may spoil some of the plans.
The problem with the “they just had tough competition” argument is that BCS and their actors are better than their competition. Ok, I’ll give you the end of Mad Med, and while I prefer BCS to Succession there’s no denying it’s a great, well acted show. But nothin that’s ever happened in Ozark touches BCS, and I’m a fan of Julie Garner.
I thought the acting in Squid game was terrible, although someone mentioned in that thread that wildly overacting is just the Korean style? Maybe so, but I suspect that’s a political win.
Yes, the last half of season 6 is eligible next year… we’ll see.
In the words of the Dude, that’s just like your opinion man…
Most people thought Julie Garner was fantastic in Ozark, the quality of the show itself doesn’t necessarily enter into Best Actor/Actress wins, as a talented actor can elevate above their show (look at James Spader’s wins for Best Actor for Boston Legal, which while it got nominated for Best Drama was no one’s choice for best show).
And I have no issues with Lee Jung-jae’s win. He portrayed desperation and fear to enter into the Squid Games and go back incredibly well, regardless of what you think of the rest of the writing.
No we won’t. The last half was not as good as the first half of season 6. Watching Gene playing in the fake snow teaching Jeffy how to pull off a department store heist was not nearly as interesting as the stories of Nacho and Howard and Lalo.
An Emmy question - who determines whether a nomination for best actor/actress vs best supporting? I was surprised Rhea Seehorn’s nomination was only for best supporting - certainly she had nearly as much screen time as Odenkirk for the first half of the season.
I get the impression that it’s whether the Emmy voter had bothered to watch any of the shows, It seems that they might watch a couple of them one year, then vote for that show for the next five years. Sure Modern Family might have been worth one one year, but to win over the likes Silicon Valley, 30 Rock, Veep, Parks and Rec and The office even during it’s pretty mediocre later seasons.
They can’t even get the nominations right, they had Nurse Jackie as a nomination for best comedy when it isn’t in any way a comedy.
.
(actually to be fair she and the show has been recognized as per the above list, just not by the Emmy crowd).