It's basically been a long hour of hell until Breaking Bad starts...
I know he can't always dance, but still I feel let down.Random thing: the Shazam app can recognize that I'm watching the Emmys when I click during random speeches or Elton John's musical number, and I'm watching live. Crazy.
Wow, they're actually reading this! A number in the middle of the show! Thanks, guys!(All you Breaking Badnicks - no big rush, just find it on youtube tomorrow.)
So, I'm not letting you leave here without an answer--why is Jeff Daniels purportedly delivering the best lead performance by an actor in a drama on television?
1) Because he manages to deliver some often ludicrous dialogue with ease and style?2) Because HBO has a huge voting bloc?3) Because life and awards aren't fair and we should just celebrate Breaking Bad's and Anna Gunn's wins?
I'll go with: He isn't, with lengthy explanations attached, stated in an obnoxious, stentorious voice.
Because the voting blocs not watching a terrible show were split between Cranston, Hamm and Spacey, letting Daniels sneak in. That's my only explanation besides voters being morons.
Great. One more year of Modern Family voting inertia while 15 better comedies get ignored.
BUT HE COULD...nah, that's actually pretty unlikely.
I believe the Emmys use straight up "choose one, plurality wins" voting rather than ranked choice. My bet is that Daniels was a winner because of that--I suspect very few people who didn't have him ranked #1 would have ranked him above 5 or 6.
I didn't watch the show, but I saw a list of winners in this morning's paper. They were all white. Ages ranged about 35 on up, but I'd call the mean 45 with the standard deviation at 5 years. Pretty sure I can guess who the voters are.
That actually makes a lot of sense. It's the Dreamgirls effect (favorite to win Best Original Song, but had three nominations, which split its fan base and let Al Gore's movie take it). Fans of Mad Men probably watch Breaking Bad, and so forth.
NPH was so good hosting the Tonys. So what went wrong here? I was inclined to blame it on the writers and producers, but based on what I read he was heavily involved in production choices -- probably not in the ones that had long tributes to people who died this year without showing their work, but did he choose to have the bits that were about him, like the HIMYM EDH intervention, which made me laugh a little bit but went on far too long and was part of the reason winners' speeches were all cut absurdly short?
Also, the song and dance number here was nowhere near as good as the one on the Tonys -- probably a writing issue (he needed Lin-Manuel Miranda, who was on TV this year so they could've reasonably called him in). And this is not his fault, but I continue to bemoan the trend to add strobes and other quickly flashing lights to production numbers. I was completely unable to watch the choreography number and about half of the middle-of-the-show dance number. Migraineurs and epileptics unite against the strobes!
While I found the tributes to the people who died this year moving - I mean, Edie Falco tearing up at discussing her friend Jim Gandolfini - it seemed like a huge omission to leave out clips of their work. This is why we're honoring them - because of their acting (or producing or other work). And while it's nice that he was your friend, we, the viewing audience, would like a moment to remember the performer we loved.
Couldn't agree more. Thought the Emmys were very stingy with speech time. It seemed like everyone was getting cut off. But there was plenty of time for Shemar Moore to bump in and out of the commercial breaks.