quote:

Originally posted by Noble:
G'Day,
3 People have Bryan Cranston. I'm sorry but he is no where near a lock. It is of the common belief that he got nominated and won last year because of his tape. This year he only has the popular vote and the field is stronger (with Sutherland and Leary reentering the fray) and with 6 nods last year there isn't even an empty slot. He is looking good for a nomination but to say that he's got this thing locked up just isn't true.

His win last year no doubt has put him on the radar but after winning Terry O'Quinn didn't even make the top 11 on the popular vote the next year and Jamie Pressly didn't make the top 10.

Jon Hamm has a much better shot. He has a very high profile and is the centerpiece for last year's drama series winner (and this year's frountrunner). If this were a panel system I could see him missing out in a tough field but with the popular vote he has it locked up.

First of all, he WON last year (Bryan Cranston). Second, have you SEEN the show this season? If anything it's better. Terry O'Quinn didn't make it into the Top 11 because his role wasn't as showboaty as the previous year when he won. Cranston doesn't have that problem at all. He's a drug dealer, he's got cancer, he's bald. Gimme a break. Hand him his second Emmy now.

In fact, of everyone I cited IN ALL CATEGORIES, Bryan Cranston's hold is the strongest on a nomination, IMHO. He easily beats out all other contenders in his category again this year, and I think he's looking at another Emmy.

Don't get me wrong, both Kiefer Sutherland and Hugh Laurie continued to deliver phenomenal work. But Cranston is more above and beyond the pale of anyone IN ANY CATEGORY. His is certainly the lockiest of the LOCKS.

And I took Jon Hamm out of the "LOCK" category. I think he'll be nominated, but there are many strong contenders in this category this year. And I'm right now watching Meditations in an Emergency (in the middle of it). So far (unless he has a knockout speech like he did last year), I don't see him as delivering anything worthy of a LOCK in this category, and certainly NOTHING that beats ANY episode of Cranston's this year.

I also disagree that just because Mad Men won last year that it's this year's "front-runner" for Drama Series. Front runner is between 24 and Lost, and I believe 24 will win it.

Just because someone is a main character in a series doesn't make them win an Emmy. Ask Michael C. Hall. Was he even nominated for his title character last season?

I think people confuse "popular vote" with the general populus, who, god knows, has diminished taste in their chocies. These are actors, after all (well, mostly). They are going to vote for the best performance. Otherwise you'd see William Petersen and Laurence Fishburne cleaning up every year for CSI. (Not that they didn't deliver great performances, but you get what I'm saying.)

We're looking for SUBLIME here. Hugh Laurie delivered that this year. Kiefer Sutherland too. But the most sublime of all was the soon to be double Emmy winner Bryan Cranston.

quote:

Originally posted by MicheBel:
I also disagree that just because Mad Men won last year that it's this year's "front-runner" for Drama Series. Front runner is between 24 and Lost...

I strongly disagree with this. Some have said that Mad Men was better last year, others say that it is better this year. Consensus overall seems to say that the series is in much the same position as it was last year. 24 has not been nominated since 2006 and not everyone was ready to forgive the show for its sixth season. Lost's season was more polarizing than last season and kicked the serialization up a nothc with the time travel and no episode was as accessible to new viewers as "The Constant".

quote:

Originally posted by iskolar:
Week 1 Drama Series Results:
1. Mad Men (99 points)
2. Lost (76 points)
3. 24 (32 points)
3. Damages (32 points)
5. House (30 points)
6. Dexter (29 points)

The buzz meter that iskolar started up seems to be a fantastic indicator of who the front runners are, as it tracks what everyone's opinions are.

quote:

Originally posted by MicheBel:
Just because someone is a main character in a series doesn't make them win an Emmy. Ask Michael C. Hall. Was he even nominated for his title character last season?

Yes.

quote:

Originally posted by MicheBel:
First of all, he WON last year (Bryan Cranston). Second, have you SEEN the show this season? If anything it's better. Terry O'Quinn didn't make it into the Top 11 because his role wasn't as showboaty as the previous year when he won. Cranston doesn't have that problem at all. He's a drug dealer, he's got cancer, he's bald. Gimme a break. Hand him his second Emmy now.

I have not seen any of the show this season, which is why I never made comment on Cranston or the show’s quality or whether he was deserving or not. All I did was make the case that he was not a lock.

Him winning last year no doubt boosts his profile and gives him a good shot of getting nominated and being deserving would onlt strengthen his cause. However, his nomination last year was so dependant on the panel system that to call him a lock this year under a completely different system I don’t think is right.

I understand that O’Quinn did not have as strong material as the year he won. But I think the failure for TWO winners from the year before to make the top 10 lists on a purely popular ballots means that winning does not mean someone has a 99% chance of getting in the top 6 the year after they won.

quote:

Don't get me wrong, both Kiefer Sutherland and Hugh Laurie continued to deliver phenomenal work. But Cranston is more above and beyond the pale of anyone IN ANY CATEGORY. His is certainly the lockiest of the LOCKS.

And I took Jon Hamm out of the "LOCK" category. I think he'll be nominated, but there are many strong contenders in this category this year. And I'm right now watching Meditations in an Emergency (in the middle of it). So far (unless he has a knockout speech like he did last year), I don't see him as delivering anything worthy of a LOCK in this category, and certainly NOTHING that beats ANY episode of Cranston's this year.

Every year at the emmys there are people who don’t deliver anything worthy of a lock that are locks and people who are the best of the year and miss out. Just because Cranston is better than Hamm this year (for the sake of argument I’ll assume he is) that doesn’t mean he has a better chance. The tough field is the main reason I wouldm’t call Cranston a lock.

quote:

I also disagree that just because Mad Men won last year that it's this year's "front-runner" for Drama Series. Front runner is between 24 and Lost, and I believe 24 will win it.

I agree that Mad Men is not the frountrunner just because it won last year. As thedemonhog has said the show has gotten a very similar response to last year and is very popular in the industry. No other show has picked up enough buzz to overtake it yet. Obviously when nominations and tape selections are out that could change – this is still early days.

quote:

Just because someone is a main character in a series doesn't make them win an Emmy. Ask Michael C. Hall. Was he even nominated for his title character last season?

I agree. I’m not talking about winning, I’m talking about getting nominated on the popular ballot. Hamm being such a strong (critically acclaimed) presence on a show that is on last year’s drama series winner and with all his industry support puts him in a locked position for nomination. Can he win? That’s a whole different equation. And Michael C. Hall was nominated last year for Dexter.

quote:

I think people confuse "popular vote" with the general populus, who, god knows, has diminished taste in their chocies. These are actors, after all (well, mostly). They are going to vote for the best performance. Otherwise you'd see William Petersen and Laurence Fishburne cleaning up every year for CSI. (Not that they didn't deliver great performances, but you get what I'm saying.)

I agree about the confusion. What’s popular in the industry is different from the general public and ratings are a fairly small consideration in predictions. However, I don’t know how much of a bearing we have that the Emmy voters watch Breaking Bad on a regular basis and are aware of Cranston’s work this season. We know they watch Mad Men and House.
And I would have no problem with William Petersen winning this year.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Noble,

Personally, I am in the camp that Mad Men was better last year, but really only because it was fresh, new on the scene. This year got more into the characters. To be expected.

(You may or may not know this about me, but I pretty much don't care about "consensus". Consensus, especially on Gold Derby, is often wrong.)

The other arguments you bring up are pretty much irrelevant to me.

All that matters is drama for drama THIS SEASON. This season only. Whether it lived up to people expectations, or was better or worse than previous seasons matters not a whit. All that matters for all these shows is THIS SEASON.

Also, I don't care about "new viewers." Most of the people voting have been around the block, and very likely have seen all or some or one episode of each show by now.

While I do agree with you that no episode of Lost this season matches The Constant (which I personally feel is the best episode of Lost ever), that really doesn't matter in the general scheme of things.

What matters, is, for example: Is LaFleur better than Jet Set? Or 2 am to 3 am? show to show. This season.

A large part of the reason 24 "hasn't been nominated since 2006" is because the strike made everything wacky, and it essentially sat out a whole Emmy cycle. More importantly: did that make this season any less good? No.

I don't at all agree with you that "Lost's season was more polarizing than last season." They got off course (IMHO) in the third season, and they've been clawing their way back e ever since.

What is true of Mad Men and Lost and 24 is that certainly ALL of them are among the best Dramas on TV. What to me makes good drama is not only the pulse-pounding tension that fills 24, but overall good storytelling.

Mad Men certainly has great characters and the stories of each of them move along, but this season, for me, none of them (except January Jones) character really went anywhere you didn't expect. Even Don's sojourns weren't really out of character, since you already knew this about him. I guess the Peggy character did take some bold steps too. But overall, it was more subdued than last season, IMHO.

Lost really took us new places. The fact that it was able to keep shifting from 1977 to present and back, within several episodes, and we knew where they were and what was happening, was nothing short of amazing. I mean, we were rooting for many different characters, in many different time frames. Would Sun ever find Jin again? Would Locke become a true leader or a despot? Does Sawyer belong with Kate or with Juliet? Will Jack ever really find himself? Multi-layered, multi-time period storytelling. Quite brilliant.

And it would be easy to hand the Emmy to Lost for that reason, were it not for how mind-blowingly incredible 24 has been this season. Try sitting down and telling someone exactly ALL the things that happened this season in 24. And if you include the movie that went first, you'd be talking for a LONG time.

Each episode was like a mini feature film. So much going on, so brilliantly plotted. So many balls juggling in the air, some which didn't pay off until the final episode. It was truly stunning to watch.

The only other show which really deserves to be talked about in this same conversation (from what I've seen, and sorry, I didn't see the final season of Battlestar Galactica, so maybe that does too), is Breaking Bad.

I've only seen bits and pieces of it, since it taped at the end of Mad Men on my TiVo, but what I did see (like fifteen minutes of each ep) was stunning and jaw-dropping and so incredibly well-done that I'd find it hard to believe that this show will be ignored at the Emmys.

Shocking to have both Breaking Bad and Mad Men there, but how could you not?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MicheBel,

quote:

Originally posted by Noble:
I have not seen any of the show this season, which is why I never made comment on Cranston or the show’s quality or whether he was deserving or not. All I did was make the case that he was not a lock.

Him winning last year no doubt boosts his profile and gives him a good shot of getting nominated and being deserving would onlt strengthen his cause. However, his nomination last year was so dependant on the panel system that to call him a lock this year under a completely different system I don’t think is right.

First, I don't know how one can definitively say: Oh, this was because of the panel, and he won't do as well with the popular vote.

No matter the voting system, the reality is this: Bryan Cranston was no longer the wimpy mousy dad from Malcolm in the Middle. In the pilot episode, he took no prisoners. He was NAKED, for god's sake, screaming in the middle of a California highway. To say he left a major impression is a vast understatement.

No, I heartily and completely disagree with you. He would've won last year if it was a panel, if it was popular voting, if people had to write their vote on a carrier pigeon's wing, or throw in sticks. He blew away the competition BY MILES. As he does this year.

(And if you haven't seen any of the show, how can you know this?)

quote:

Originally posted by Noble:
I understand that O’Quinn did not have as strong material as the year he won. But I think the failure for TWO winners from the year before to make the top 10 lists on a purely popular ballots means that winning does not mean someone has a 99% chance of getting in the top 6 the year after they won.

Well, first, both Drama Supporting Actor and Drama Supporting Actress are DAMN crowded categories. So, while I do think the Emmys have a history of having repeat winners (James Spader anyone?), in Supporting, if you don't have a really memorable year, you don't deserve to be in that top ten.

quote:

Originally posted by Noble:
Every year at the emmys there are people who don’t deliver anything worthy of a lock that are locks and people who are the best of the year and miss out. Just because Cranston is better than Hamm this year (for the sake of argument I’ll assume he is) that doesn’t mean he has a better chance. The tough field is the main reason I wouldm’t call Cranston a lock.

I really don't feel I can argue this with you, if you haven't even seen his performance. I really believe if you had, you would see clearly why he is definitely a lock again this year. (And, I think, a lock to win.)

Let's for the sake of argument say that his top competition is Hugh Laurie, Jon Hamm, Kiefer Sutherland, James Spader and maybe Michael C. Hall. All incredible actors, delivering amazing performances this year. Does any one of them come close to what Cranston did this year?

I personally think that Hugh Laurie and Kiefer Sutherland are his closest competition. Laurie ends up going into a mental institution, Sutherland is in a coma at the end, fighting off the effects of chemical inhalation for half the season. But undergoing chemo for cancer trumps all that.

Also, both Laurie and Sutherland, while powerhouses, play kind of the same notes in their symphony of their roles. Cranston successfully (and amazingly) juggles being a hard-nosed drug dealing crime boss with being a loving new dad and husband. Soft and hard. (Sutherland and Laurie both come off as mostly hard, tough, crotchety/jaded.) Really, it is that range that warrants giving Cranston the Emmy again, too.

Even James Spader, whom I love (and I'm behind on Boston Legal episodes), but what he does well, and what garnered him the Emmys he has is that he's able to deliver those powerhouse David Kelley speeches with conviction. He wins over the jury of us every single week. And he has his soft side with Denny on the balcony at the end. Pretty hard to beat that, in general.

But these guys with these diseases and troubles this season (Laurie, Sutherland and Cranston) do kinda push him out of the way. Jon Hamm, in comparison, did some soul searching and bossed people around. I can't even think of one powerhouse tape for Hamm to submit. Sutherland has at least three to choose from which could win him the Emmy. Laurie has at least two. Cranston though? Pick any episode.

quote:

Originally posted by Noble:
I agree that Mad Men is not the frountrunner just because it won last year. As thedemonhog has said the show has gotten a very similar response to last year and is very popular in the industry. No other show has picked up enough buzz to overtake it yet. Obviously when nominations and tape selections are out that could change – this is still early days.

"Buzz" doesn't matter a whit to me. All that matters to me is watching the shows and making an assessment. Right now, on this board, hardly anyone is predicting 24, and certainly not as strongly as I am. (I don't think anyone yet has come out and said, it's gonna WIN the Best Drama Series Emmy like I'm saying.) Shows don't get nominated or win based on BUZZ. That's a fallacy on these boards.

quote:

Originally posted by Noble:
I agree. I’m not talking about winning, I’m talking about getting nominated on the popular ballot. Hamm being such a strong (critically acclaimed) presence on a show that is on last year’s drama series winner and with all his industry support puts him in a locked position for nomination. Can he win? That’s a whole different equation.

I don't at all think that people get nominated because they are central characters on a show that won last year. Or because they have "industry support." All that does and should matter is: Were they one of the top five (or six or seven) actors in a Drama this year?

And yeah, he probably is. Michael C. Hall probably is too.

quote:

Originally posted by Noble:
I agree about the confusion. What’s popular in the industry is different from the general public and ratings are a fairly small consideration in predictions. However, I don’t know how much of a bearing we have that the Emmy voters watch Breaking Bad on a regular basis and are aware of Cranston’s work this season. We know they watch Mad Men and House.

And I would have no problem with William Petersen winning this year.

Actually, we have no idea (really) what they do or don't watch. But trust me, if someone gives a powerhouse performance, they are gonna get recognized. Breaking Bad wasn't even on anyone (meaning anyone in Gold Derby)'s radar last year at this time.

But yeah, I do think there might be a tendency for people to go, Oh, he won last year, let's see what he's doing this year...

And William Petersen is long overdue for an Emmy, IMHO. ;-)

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MicheBel,

There isn't an argument whether you think "Mad Men" is more worthy this year or not. The truth is whether it got better or worse the second season won at the Globes, the SAGs and the PGA. It almost doubled its viewership. It's a show with both the "cool factor" and the "intellectual factor". It's a media and critical darling. And it has six tapes. It's the frontrunner and even more so than last year.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Brilliance inmorbid,

Do ya work on Mad Men then, BI?

1. Globes: Who cares?

2. SAG ensemble and PGA: Deserves it

3. Doubled its viewership: Who cares? Doesn't matter one iota in Emmy balloting. (See previous CSI comments.)

4. "The cool factor"? Um, yeah, ok, sure.

5. "The intellectual factor"? Intellectuals watch TV? Forgive me, but as arty cool as Mad Men is, if we are arguing which show is the most "intellectual", you cannot beat Lost's multiple levels of time-travel, and discussions of quantum physics. Gimme a break.

6. "Media and critics darling"? Again: who cares? Certainly not Emmy voters. That doesn't factor into their voting at all.

7. All of the top shows will come up with six tapes.

quote:

It's the frontrunner and even more so than last year.

You kill me.

OK, I will concede this much. It won Best Drama last year. Therefore, at this moment, it is probably the front-runner, for that reason alone.

Oh, and last year this time, no one had it on their radar, so yeah, having Won a BEST DRAMA Emmy, it's more of a front-runner this year than last.

However, having watched the full seasons of Mad Men, Lost and 24, I rest easy knowing that it will be 24 who takes home the Best Drama Emmy this year.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MicheBel,

quote:

Originally posted by Brilliance inmorbid:
There isn't an argument whether you think "Mad Men" is more worthy this year or not. The truth is whether it got better or worse the second season won at the Globes, the SAGs and the PGA. It almost doubled its viewership. It's a show with both the "cool factor" and the "intellectual factor". It's a media and critical darling. And it has six tapes. It's the frontrunner and even more so than last year.

Agreed. Last year, it had more things going against it. Are they ready to nominate a non HBO cable series? Damages or Mad Men? Lots of competition. Those are the issues last year, and they survived it. I think it's stronger than ever this year.

quote:

Originally posted by MicheBel:
6. "Media and critics darling"? Again: who cares? Certainly not Emmy voters. That doesn't factor into their voting at all.

However, having watched the full seasons of Mad Men, Lost and 24, I rest easy knowing that it will be 24 who takes home the Best Drama Emmy this year.

This is actually ironic. How many Emmy voters do really watch the whole season? We can't tell but I'm guessing not a lot. All you need are six episodes and it's a done deal.

You said, ""Media and critics darling"? Again: who cares? Certainly not Emmy voters." Unless you're an Emmy voter, then no one also cares about you're "24 winning" theory .

Every show that has won drama series this decade has been the presumed front-runner, so buzz is a huge factor, esp. in drama series. And I don't work for MM, I'm just a realist.

I've been a fan of yours for a while MecheBel, but you have the tendency to rework the situations to fit your own wishes. BI out!

quote:

Originally posted by east/west:

Outstanding Reality-Competition Program
The Amazing Race (CBS)
American Idol (FOX)
Survivor (CBS)

Survivor hasn't made the lineup for the past two years. Top Chef booted it. Why would it be a lock this year?

G’Day,
Thanks for your response MicheBel!

quote:

Originally posted by MicheBel: First, I don't know how one can definitively say: Oh, this was because of the panel, and he won't do as well with the popular vote...
(And if you haven't seen any of the show, how can you know this?)

I’m not definitively saying that he got in on the panel and therefore won’t do as well with the popular vote. I’m making the case that you can’t definitively say that he didn’t get in on the panel system last year and that he will do as well with the popular vote. And I did see the Pilot last year , I just meant I hadn’t seen any of the show this year.

quote:

Well, first, both Drama Supporting Actor and Drama Supporting Actress are DAMN crowded categories.

I’d say that Lead Actor drama is just as crowded (if not more so) than these 2. Although they are, as you say, crowded.

quote:

I really don't feel I can argue this with you, if you haven't even seen his performance. I really believe if you had, you would see clearly why he is definitely a lock again this year. (And, I think, a lock to win.)

My point was just that there are very deserving contenders who get left out each year and merit does not always equal a nomination. I never made the case that Cranston’s material wasn’t strong enough to get in (and it would be wrong for me to make that point).

quote:

James Spader, whom I love...
But these guys with these diseases and troubles this season (Laurie, Sutherland and Cranston) do kinda push him out of the way.

I love Spader as well. What I love about him is that he is able to portray so much emotion, impact, humanity and depth without having a disease or personal tragedy to deal with. I havn’t seen Cranston this year and I still have 3 episodes of 24 to go but I’d put Spader over Laurie this year.

quote:

Shows don't get nominated or win based on BUZZ. That's a fallacy on these boards.

Yeah and sorry, that wasn’t a great choice of word. What I probably meant was industry appeal and momentum. Mad Men’s success at the Emmy’s last year and it not losing any steam with its 2nd season strengthens it’s prospects this year.

quote:

All that does and should matter is: Were they one of the top five (or six or seven) actors in a Drama this year?

I agree that that is all that should matter but disagree that’s all that does.

quote:

But yeah, I do think there might be a tendency for people to go, Oh, he won last year, let's see what he's doing this year...

I agree that will be a huge help but I don’t think it makes his nomination certain.

quote:

And William Petersen is long overdue for an Emmy, IMHO. ;-)

Great to hear MicheBel!

quote:

Originally posted by Brilliance Inmorbid:
Every show that has won drama series this decade has been the presumed front-runner, so buzz is a huge factor, esp. in drama series. And I don't work for MM, I'm just a realist.

That’s not true. In 2002 and even moreso in 2003 The West Wing was not the presumed frountrunner. There was a sense that the show had declined in quality and Six Feet Under had the most nods and all the buzz in 2002 and people thought it was finally time for Sopranos in 2003. In 2006 there was no presumed frountrunner with 24, The West Wing and Grey’s Anatomy appearing in interchangeable orders on everyone’s predictions. The one common denominator for for winning series here has been steller tapes. The West Wing’s four wins was becase each of their 8 episodes were nothing short of outstanding. The Sopranos finally won with great tapes. Lost won with the best tape submissions. 24 won with great tapes just as good as any other show (if not better). The Sopranos won again with mostly great tapes in a field where all shows made mistakes in submissions. And Mad Men won last year with great tapes. Tapes are crucial here and that’s why final predictions can’t be made until they are known.

quote:

Originally posted by Brilliance inmorbid:
There isn't an argument whether you think "Mad Men" is more worthy this year or not. The truth is whether it got better or worse the second season won at the Globes, the SAGs and the PGA. It almost doubled its viewership. It's a show with both the "cool factor" and the "intellectual factor". It's a media and critical darling. And it has six tapes. It's the frontrunner and even more so than last year.

I think "Mad Men" fills the void left by "The West Wing" for the smart, adult drama that also has a cool factor to it and gets execellent demographics so it fits right into what the Academy would want to vote for.

About all the Bryan Cranston talk, I won't say he's a lock. Emmy voters are certainly not avid followers of shows. And even though he won last year, the show is not a standout on people's mind unlike Mad Men or Lost. Laurie is an example of whom I think is popular and definitely ranked high on ballot but never ranked high during panel viewing. And with so many people vying for the ever competitive Leading Actor Drama category, he could easily slipped as I think he cannot possibly be ranked higher than 4th among the rest when there's Laurie, Hamm, Hall, Byrne, Spader, Sutherland, Leary, Chiklis, Baker, Petersen, Fishburne to even people like Olmos, Rhys-Meyers, LaPaglia, Paxton & Fox who are going to fight for that top 6 spots.

quote:

Originally posted by Michebel:
Actually, we have no idea (really) what they do or don't watch. But trust me, if someone gives a powerhouse performance, they are gonna get recognized. Breaking Bad wasn't even on anyone (meaning anyone in Gold Derby)'s radar last year at this time.

There were people on here who were talking up the show and Bryan Cranston's Emmy chances last year, so that's not a true assessment. I certainly was, and had Cranston as the runner-up for lead actor (thought that it was Hugh Laurie's time). Please don't speak for all of us when it's not warranted or accurate.

quote:

Originally posted by Noble:

quote:

Originally posted by Brilliance Inmorbid:
Every show that has won drama series this decade has been the presumed front-runner, so buzz is a huge factor, esp. in drama series. And I don't work for MM, I'm just a realist.

That’s not true. In 2002 and even moreso in 2003 The West Wing was not the presumed frountrunner. There was a sense that the show had declined in quality and Six Feet Under had the most nods and all the buzz in 2002 and people thought it was finally time for Sopranos in 2003. In 2006 there was no presumed frountrunner with 24, The West Wing and Grey’s Anatomy appearing in interchangeable orders on everyone’s predictions. The one common denominator for for winning series here has been steller tapes. The West Wing’s four wins was becase each of their 8 episodes were nothing short of outstanding. The Sopranos finally won with great tapes. Lost won with the best tape submissions. 24 won with great tapes just as good as any other show (if not better). The Sopranos won again with mostly great tapes in a field where all shows made mistakes in submissions. And Mad Men won last year with great tapes. Tapes are crucial here and that’s why final predictions can’t be made until they are known.

Of course tapes have a huge part to do with the win. I'm not disputing that. But with the exception of SFU (which was proven not to be an "Emmy type" show) every front-runner in drama series has walked away with the gold. I never saw "Sopranos" winning for its third or fourth season, btw.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Brilliance inmorbid,

quote:

Originally posted by Brilliance inmorbid:
There isn't an argument whether you think "Mad Men" is more worthy this year or not. The truth is whether it got better or worse the second season won at the Globes, the SAGs and the PGA. It almost doubled its viewership. It's a show with both the "cool factor" and the "intellectual factor". It's a media and critical darling. And it has six tapes. It's the frontrunner and even more so than last year.

That says it all.

quote:

Originally posted by iskolar:
This is actually ironic. How many Emmy voters do really watch the whole season? We can't tell but I'm guessing not a lot. All you need are six episodes and it's a done deal.

OK, you wanna go there? I put ANY of 24's episodes this season up against any of Mad Men's. I count EIGHT episodes of 24 which are mind-blowingly incredible. And another 12 or so which are just superb.

Contrast that with Lost, which has about eight (counting the finale as two).

Mad Men, in contrast, only has six.

But let's just say that all three have six strong episodes.

Shot for shot, line for line, setup for setup, 24 is the strongest. Its pacing is fast and flowing, the acting is superb, the explosions are dynamic, the twists are believable (even the final one). I personally put this season right up there with the season it won its Emmy for.

Lost had pretty good pacing, and more questions were answered, so the storylines followed along pretty believably. The acting and below the line stuff on Lost is always superb. But still not quite as dynamic as 24.

Mad Men, in contrast, will sell those who wanna bite off chunks of period. It does that well. The costumes, the set decoration, the blinking TVs of the 60s. But did it move you? Did it have you weeping? Or is it just the machinations of people in an ad agency?

For all those who argue that nothing Lost did this season equalled the poignancy of last season's The Constant, I would say this: Not a single thing in this season's Mad Men equalled the punch and poignancy of that final speech in The Wheel which won them the Emmy.

The first season really had a lot more setting you in the period with poignancy: the strictness about dancing in the late 50s, for example, was brought home with the characters in the first season.

In this season, you have two POWERFUL gimmes: the death of Marilyn Monroe and the Bay of Pigs. What did they do with them, related to the characters? A few people walking around saying how sad they were and how terrible it was. Even the bus ride down south was brief and inconsequential. He comes back and says how it changed his life. We don't see it.

Even Don's life changing walkabout was a mess to me. That whole sequence in The Mountain King where he's with the real Don Draper's wife. There was some time shifting in that, and unlike Lost, it confused me where the heck they were and when. Oh, he hasn't married Betty yet? Oh, he's car racing and has no job? HUH?

And most important, what did all that have to do with the story? What did he ultimately learn from taking three weeks off from his job? It all just seemed pointless. Other than to show you that he's been friends with this woman for a long time. Big whoop.

Don Draper's ultimately a lying, manipulative spoiled child who ends up getting his way (and a cool half million) for being absent from work for three weeks.

Meanwhile on 24, Africa countries are being testing grounds for chemical warfare, and greedy corporation heads are plotting to have their own little armies. Our hero gets infected with some of the toxic chemical and battles that while fighting the bad guys. Oh, yeah, and I didn't even mention how they took the president of the United States HOSTAGE. Seriously? You wanna compare the two? Which one had more relevance? Which one was more powerful? Which one was the better, more compelling DRAMA?

There's simply no contest. 24 in a cakewalk.

quote:

Originally posted by iskolar:
You said, ""Media and critics darling"? Again: who cares? Certainly not Emmy voters." Unless you're an Emmy voter, then no one also cares about your "24 winning" theory.

See, here's the thing. Emmy voters already have a pretty good idea what they are marking on their ballots by this point in time. I absolutely do not expect any Emmy voter to suddenly say: "OH! that's what MicheBel thinks? I'm changing my vote now!" Not for me, not for ANYONE in this forum, not even for Tom O'Neil. They vote how they wanna vote, based on their own opinions.

I'm just calling the shots as I see them. And furthermore, you can call me out on any number of wrong calls in this forum over the years. The one thing I am CONSISTENTLY right about, year after year after year (only missing The Sopranos, cause I was stubborn...shrugs) is Best Drama.

And I'm right this year, too. You'll see.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MicheBel,

quote:

Originally posted by MicheBel:

quote:

Originally posted by iskolar:
This is actually ironic. How many Emmy voters do really watch the whole season? We can't tell but I'm guessing not a lot. All you need are six episodes and it's a done deal.

You said, ""Media and critics darling"? Again: who cares? Certainly not Emmy voters." Unless you're an Emmy voter, then no one also cares about you're "24 winning" theory.

OK, you wanna go there? I put ANY of 24's episodes this season up against any of Mad Men's. I count EIGHT episodes of 24 which are mind-blowingly incredible. And another 12 or so which are just superb.

Contrast that with Lost, which has about eight (counting the finale as two).

Mad Men, in contrast, only has six.

But let's just say that all three have six strong episodes.

Shot for shot, line for line, setup for setup, 24 is the strongest. Its pacing is fast and flowing, the acting is superb, the explosions are dynamic, the twists are believable (even the final one). I personally put this season right up there with the season it won its Emmy for.

Lost had pretty good pacing, and more questions were answered, so the storylines followed along pretty believably. The acting and below the line stuff on Lost is always superb. But still not quite as dynamic as 24.

Mad Men, in contrast, will sell those who wanna bite off chunks of period. It does that well. The costumes, the set decoration, the blinking TVs of the 60s. But did it move you? Did it have you weeping? Or is it just the machinations of people in an ad agency?

For all those who argue that nothing Lost did this season equalled the poignancy of last season's The Constant, I would say this: Not a single thing in this season's Mad Men equalled the punch and poignancy of that final speech in The Wheel which won them the Emmy.

The first season really had a lot more setting you in the period with poignancy: the strictness about dancing in the late 50s, for example, was brought home with the characters in the first season.

In this season, you have two POWERFUL gimmes: the death of Marilyn Monroe and the Bay of Pigs. What did they do with them, related to the characters? A few people walking around saying how sad they were and how terrible it was. Even the bus ride down south was brief and inconsequential. He comes back and says how it changed his life. We don't see it.

Even Don's life changing walkabout was a mess to me. That whole sequence in The Mountain King where he's with the real Don Draper's wife. There was some time shifting in that, and unlike Lost, it confused me where the heck they were and when. Oh, he hasn't married Betty yet? Oh, he's car racing and has no job? HUH?

And most important, what did all that have to do with the story? What did he ultimately learn from taking three weeks off from his job? It all just seemed pointless. Other than to show you that he's been friends with this woman for a long time. Big whoop.

Don Draper's ultimately a lying, manipulative spoiled child who ends up getting his way (and a cool half million) for being absent from work for three weeks.

Meanwhile on 24, Africa countries are being testing grounds for chemical warfare, and greedy corporation heads are plotting to have their own little armies. Our hero gets infected with some of the toxic chemical and battles that while fighting the bad guys. Oh, yeah, and I didn't even mention how they took the president of the United States HOSTAGE. Seriously? You wanna compare the two? Which one had more relevance? Which one was more powerful? Which one was the better, more compelling DRAMA?

There's simply no contest. 24 in a cakewalk.

We get it. 24 is better than Mad Men and will win the Emmy. Now, please, no more Bible-long posts.

I'll write as long as I damn well want to. Thanks.

Wait...did you say you're a fan of mine?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MicheBel,