Thanks for the information. Even if a voter is only expected to watch two episodes of a series, any idea how many hours of television does that amount to? Assume a conscientious voter who makes a sincere attempt at watching everything asked of them.
For example, eight series were in competition for Best Drama series. Assuming each episode was sixty minutes (they’re not, as the broadcast shows are only about 42 minutes without the commercial breaks), that’s sixteen hours of watching time.
Don’t forget all those commercials where she explainedwhy her jeans fit so well.
Spoiler: It was Murjani’s special stretch fabric.
Gloria Vanderbilt did have a number of TV acting credits. Perhaps not enough to have included her if she weren’t otherwise famous, but legit credits.
Good to see Chernobyl get some accolades, but I’d agree with some of the gripes:
Game of thrones sweeping the top awards is almost sarcastic at this point. I know writing quality is subjective, but somehow the last season managed to be objectively awful.
Last week tonight has great researchers but humor-wise it’s way overrated by this point. I take no pleasure in saying that, as John is my age and grew up within a few miles of me, so he’s a local boy done good.
But i think people like Jim Jeffries do a similar schtick to him, but better. And another emmy isn’t going to make him sharpen up.
Sent from my Redmi 5A using Tapatalk
WTF is a Fleabag?
Well, it didn’t exactly “sweep the top awards,” just Drama Series and Supporting Actor - which I don’t think anybody can deny Peter Dinklage richly deserved.
And, despite the final season’s much-discussed flaws, it was still better than 95% of anything else on television. I wouldn’t have been mad if* Ozark *had won; it’s great. This Is Us is an overrated weep-fest. I haven’t seen any of the other nominees, and in fact had only even heard of two of them before Sunday night. From where I sit, GoT winning was not that big a stretch.
I can! Especially when Jonathan Banks was nominated as well.
The final season wasn’t better than 95% of anything else. I do think that Better Call Saul, Pose, Killing Eve, and Succession were all better as well.
My “sweep the awards” comment was due to misreading the number of wins vs nominations. My bad.
But yeah I’d say best supporting actor is debatable. Not that dinklage isn’t great, but it was an impossible role to play this season (and the last couple of seasons). I can’t really rate his performance given he needed to behave inconsistently in the script.
Best drama fugghedaboudit
You might be right, and if the latter three had hired a better publicist I might have an opinion about them. (Breaking Bad was not my cup of tea, so I never started on Better Call Saul.)
Anyway, my intention is not to debate the quality of Game of Thrones or any other show. The point is that this is all subjective.
For instance, I quit Fleabag after 3 episodes; the lead character was just too off-putting for me. But I’m not mad it won as many awards as it did. People liked it and voted for it. More power to 'em, I guess.
GoT season 8 in a nutshell: the acting was solid, but the script packed everyone and everything together in a dumpster and lit it all on fire—and not in a good way. Dracarys indeed.
I mean, Rome Season 2 had to be re-written midway through to the end to account for the show being cancelled after just two seasons instead of the planned five, and yet somehow they managed to write a more coherent, satisfying ending to the storylines and characters than did D&D for GoT, even with an extra year to do it and a chance to end the series in their own time.
I’m “meh” about the best drama award as a swan song for the series. Mostly I’m just glad they weren’t rewarded for their lousy writing and directing.
Fleabag is not an Amazon original, it’s BBC, which definitely counts as a broadcast network.
Not really. It’s perfectly possible to be a great supporting or lead actor and have leads of supports who aren’t so great. And there’s usually more than one lead actor and several supporting actor, so how would you decide which “pair” to include? It might be fair to include people as a pair now and then, and occasionally actors have been nominated as a pair so this does happen, but not as a rule. (I can’t find the links for that right now because Google is full of the recent Emmy results, but it has happened a couple of times).
The SAG Awards have an ensemble award which sort of does what you’re thinking of, recognising that it’s not just one or two actors who really make the show. But it’s not necessary for all the awards to have all the same categories.
I had never heard of Fleabag before this thread, but the missus and I have Amazon Prime, so we just watched the first episode. It was very funny, and the show is now in our rotation.
It’s on Amazon in the US. It being a broadcast network in the UK has no bearing on broadcast vs cable vs streaming debates on program quality regarding the Emmys in the US. It counts firmly at a streaming show here as there is no possible way that a US broadcast network would ever have aired it
As such you’ll note that everyone who won an Emmy for it thanked Amazon and no one mentioned the BBC.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
The classical music world is all abuzz over this Emmy goof:
“Did the Emmy Awards In Memoriam just show a photo of the very much alive conductor Leonard Slatkin to honor the late Andre Previn?”
Photos of both of them here:
Your claim was that “the streaming and cable networks let shows do interesting things that broadcast networks simply did not want them to do.” Fleabag was commissioned by a broadcast network, so it’s not a good example of a show that was made without the constraints of broadcast networks, which is what you were talking about. Amazon bought it later, but they’ve bought lots of shows; if they show Mash, for example (I’m not sure what’s on Amazon Prime in the US) that wouldn’t mean they could suddenly claim credit for making it.
You’re probably right overall about the freedom afforded by streaming services, but Fleabag isn’t an example of that.
It is, actually.
It isn’t that there are no limits or constraints to what gets broadcast in the UK - but those constraints are very different than the constraints on broadcast in the US. The production and funding models are different, there are different rules as to what’s allowed on air, and there are different commercial realities. Or, in other words, none of the US networks could have made or aired Fleabag. (Similarly, based on what I understand, there’s no way that the UK networks could have made “This is Us”)
That’s probably more a reflection of the fact that the Emmys is an American awards show. I’ll bet at a British awards show like the Baftas, they thank the BBC instead of Amazon.
I don’t understand this argument. Fleabag was commissioned by a major broadcast network, the BBC, and won major awards in the UK before Amazon picked it up in the US (which is they they picked it up). “None of the US networks could have made or aired Fleabag” might be true, but it was still made by a main channel, unless the BBC is somehow not a main channel. It wasn’t an Amazon original.
Amazon and Netflix have commissioned some great shows, but they can’t claim credit just for buying a show that had already been commissioned and financed by a different channel. They showed it in the US, but they didn’t make it. That is a fact, so I’m not sure why there’s any argument here.
Not sure why UK networks couldn’t have made This is Us, except for it being set in the US.
The TV version of Fleabag is a BBC Three and Amazon Studios co-production.
I mean, that sort of arrangement is really common nowadays. Line of Duty and The Bodyguard - two of the most successful dramas the BBC has shown in recent years - were produced by a company now wholly owned by ITV subsidiary companies