Emmy Nominations thread

Moderators: Annie, BookhouseBoyBob, Ross, Jerry Horne, Brad D

LateReg
Posts: 735
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: Emmy Nominations thread

Postby LateReg » Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:46 pm

NormoftheAndes wrote:
Mr. Strawberry wrote:Okay, so Twin Peaks was not easy TV. It ruffled fan feathers and confused the hell out of everyone. Still, the fact that it's been given absolutely nothing might seem as confounding as its own story. That is, it's easy to feel that way at first blush.

But consider for a moment how familiar the whole things is -- mediocrity being held up as outstanding in every area to the point that there's simply no room left for "the rest". It reminds me of a certain institution, a place you're forced to go, where everyone gets an award, where following the herd is celebrated and individuality is crushed with hasty brutality.

What is this? Kindergarten? Nursery School?

But, doesn't it make sense? Have you ever seen an awards show that behaves any differently from this one? It's important to remember that these aren't awards (something I would give my son for doing an awesome drawing), they're rewards (something I would give my son in return for good behavior) -- they're reinforcements. Viewed in that way, one can see that all is well. Studios are rewarded (their approach to entertainment is reinforced) when they deliver what's expected of them. Expectations do change over time, but there's a familiarity to each iteration. It only takes a moment to recognize a package containing a distillation of current trends, especially when it is placed beside a work of art, which is something born of passion and vision.

Just as Twin Peaks failed to renew 25 years ago, it will also fail to receive accolades at The Big Awards Show. At the end of the day, the thing is still what it is, regardless of the most errant or studied appraisals. Also, for anyone involved in creating a work of art, satisfaction comes from the creation of the work, and once it's completed, that satisfaction then comes from enjoying the finished work through its effects on the self and others, while basking in the memories of its creation. A pat on the back is always welcome but should never be the goal nor should it ever be considered a definitive indication of merit.

----

Now for Part II: The Shit Talking

I know this isn't about the other shows, yet I could not help but compare, so please consider what follows to be nothing more than a rant.

Game of Thrones, The Handmaid's Tale*, Westworld, and The Alienist are all garbage in their own special ways. Stranger Things was entertaining though a bit uninspired. GLOW* was atrocious and unfunny in the most painfully embarrassing manner possible. Of all the shows nominated, this might be the biggest head scratcher.

Note: Perhaps I've missed some gold, since I haven't seen everything nominated.

*So terrible that I bailed after several episodes.


Apart from all that waffle and shit-talking as you describe it, could it be The Return was not nominated as a Limited Series because it simply wasn't good enough?


Strawberry, great post. You're absolutely right. But sometimes it's just nice to see something get recognition. (I do like GLOW, by the way...a lot...but Game of Thrones was lackluster, Westworld is a big nothing, and The Handmaid's Tale is quite heavy handed.)

Norm - Regardless of personal opinion, the show is good enough. If you just go by critical acclaim and year-end acclaim, it should have had no problem being nominated. While disappointment was had in some circles, there is an overwhelming sense in year-end discussions (both TV and Film), articles written about the show and the continuing outpouring of love for it on places like Letterboxd that it will go down in history as a monumental and game-changing achievement.

And as MT said, the show wasn't exactly snubbed. It received 9 nominations, including those for writing and directing. This really speaks of it simply being too divisive to stand out in the major categories where it was competing against much friendlier fare that was easier to embrace by multitudes. It is always strange to see something so honored in nearly every category yet miss out on the big awards, but it happens all the time to stuff that isn't for everyone (i.e. Carol at the 2016 Academy Awards and The Master at the 2013 ceremony). And I assume only techies vote for technical categories, which makes it easier for lesser seen (or even lesser liked) stuff to get recognition.
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Emmy Nominations thread

Postby N. Needleman » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:41 pm

It's a shame, but not particularly shocking. The Emmys love playing it safe.

What really matters is the cultural perception, and that is that TP was robbed. Overwhelmingly the critics and general audience are absolutely lighting the Emmys up on social media right now about snubbing Peaks. That's good enough for me.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
LateReg
Posts: 735
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: Emmy Nominations thread

Postby LateReg » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:45 pm

N. Needleman wrote:It's a shame, but not particularly shocking. The Emmys love playing it safe.

What really matters is the cultural perception, and that is that TP was robbed. Overwhelmingly the critics and general audience are absolutely lighting the Emmys up on social media right now about snubbing Peaks. That's good enough for me.


That's good to hear!

And yes, when it wasn't nominated for Golden Globe I even said that the Globes were its best shot at recognition, and that I didn't think it would get nominated for an Emmy. Yet, all the recent predictions had it as one of six, so I got my hopes up. It will be interesting to see how the directing, visual and sound editing and cinematography categories play out, because those seem like no-brainers to me.
User avatar
Mr. Strawberry
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:17 pm
Location: Nevada City, CA
Contact:

Re: Emmy Nominations thread

Postby Mr. Strawberry » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:58 pm

NormoftheAndes wrote:Apart from all that waffle and shit-talking as you describe it, could it be The Return was not nominated as a Limited Series because it simply wasn't good enough?

The Shit Talking was Part II, so you must be referring to Part I as The Waffle. Let me distill it for you:

Twin Peaks went up against shows that are much less complex, and arguably less artistic and less mature. It stands to reason that The Return would be shoulder to shoulder with the competition in many categories, given the great quality of effort put into so many aspects of its creation. However, as Big Award Shows typically go, the spotlight was placed on what is considered to have mass appeal via corporate misconceptions that are invalidated by face to face interaction with peers, reading of posts on internet forums, exchanges with distant friends over e-mail, and so on. It should come as no surprise when shareholders make a loud bit of ruckus for their highly valuable intellectual properties, but it is disheartening to see content that might be considered even remotely strange always placed over to the side.

At this point you might stop me and say, "Wait, are you admitting that Twin Peaks does not have mass appeal? Or are you saying that it's simply treated as such?"

I would say it's very common to meet someone that's never watched Twin Peaks, but what is disturbing is how imbalanced the list of nominations appears in light of how many Twin Peaks fans also like some or all of the shows that were nominated. The list appears to indicate otherwise, as though Twin Peaks is quite removed from all that is palatable, and possibly also shot before a live audience, on Betacam, in a single 18 hour take, with soundtrack performed live on set, and all effects executed in camera.

It is noteworthy to observe how award shows typically feel so much more like the delivery of a promised reward, the distinction being that one receives an award for accomplishing a special achievement, while rewards are doled out to those who meet expectations.

----


To answer your question: I only saw one of the nominated Limited Series, and that was The Alienist. However based on that viewing alone, my answer is no, I don't think that The Return simply wasn't good enough for a nomination. I can't find anything in The Alienist that moves me. The entire thing was flat and dull and a chore to watch, and that is a real failure. It simply didn't work, and I can elaborate upon request, but I did enjoy the book back when it was released.

Anyway, I can't compare the two and then find any reason why The Alienist would be chosen above The Return, because even if you remove your personal feelings for the shows, my earlier observation about The Return -- "the great quality of effort put into so many aspects of its creation" -- actually applies to The Alienist as well. So what qualifies one above the other?
Not taking any calls.
Hester Prynne
Posts: 252
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 8:10 am

Re: Emmy Nominations thread

Postby Hester Prynne » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:07 pm

LateReg wrote:
No matter how much I try to let it go, I can't, because it just boggles my mind that these institutions are in place that are meant to honor the best in their field, and no elaborate history of wrongness is ever learned from. It just makes me wonder what it will take. I hope we get some good articles out of this, at any rate.


The irony of all of this is that in the lead up to The Return, all people talked about was how the original show was groundbreaking for so many of the shows we love and watch today and that essentially, it was before its time and under appreciated. So what happens after coming back after 25 years, which is a feat in and of it self, and being acclaimed by critics everywhere? It's shafted yet again for the trendy shows.

I'm generally a pessimistic person by nature, and even I thought it was all but a certainty The Return would be nominated in the Limited Series category, as well as Kyle in the LS actor category. The other nominations are great, but for The Return to not even be recognized with a nomination in one of these categories is a head scratcher.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2142
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Emmy Nominations thread

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:33 pm

.
Last edited by Mr. Reindeer on Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ashok
Posts: 531
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 10:39 am
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Re: Emmy Nominations thread

Postby Ashok » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:47 pm

Wow, I'm in total disbelief the show got shafted so hard by the Emmys. Oh well, I guess it's pretty much in the same company with Hannibal and The Wire which isn't a bad legacy. I keep forgetting the Academy isn't trustworthy at all in awarding quality television.
"Whatever happened, happened." -Daniel Faraday
User avatar
ThumbsUp
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:05 pm

Re: Emmy Nominations thread

Postby ThumbsUp » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:57 pm

These awards shows are gross. LA is full "for your consideration" billboards plastered across town during awards season for specific shows and all that crap. I don't know how much the Peaks team waded into that mud, but if they didn't and that's what contributed to them getting the shaft, totally fine by me. (Did you guys see how, as usual, the *Oscars telecast* gets thrown a bunch of technical noms? This is why people hate Hollywood.)

And I have no shame, a-shit-talking I will go: I know it's a different category, but Stranger Things season 2 was popcorn fare that barely classified as a "drama"; Westworld is a wildly overconfident boring puzzlebox of a show, and best actor nominee Jeffrey Wright had the same expression propped on his face the entire season; also, didn't fans turn on GoT and call it the worst season ever? I'm fine with Handmaid; yeah it can be heavy-handed, but I also find it (inconsistently) excellent. Happy to see Sandra Oh as the first Asian-American nominated for best actress, and happy that Laura Dern got some love. Was completely ecstatic to see Barry be recognised so much.

If I'm being honest, I'm shocked Twin Peaks got the writing nom, just because I was bracing myself for worst case scenario. If Lynch didn't get the directing nom, then something had to have been seriously wrong in the universe. I could continue with the bitter rantings of a peeved fanboy, but I'll end with saying that Kyle getting overlooked was the most egregious sin of all.
User avatar
NormoftheAndes
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 4:00 am

Re: Emmy Nominations thread

Postby NormoftheAndes » Fri Jul 13, 2018 2:02 am

Mr. Strawberry wrote:
NormoftheAndes wrote:Apart from all that waffle and shit-talking as you describe it, could it be The Return was not nominated as a Limited Series because it simply wasn't good enough?

The Shit Talking was Part II, so you must be referring to Part I as The Waffle. Let me distill it for you:

Twin Peaks went up against shows that are much less complex, and arguably less artistic and less mature. It stands to reason that The Return would be shoulder to shoulder with the competition in many categories, given the great quality of effort put into so many aspects of its creation. However, as Big Award Shows typically go, the spotlight was placed on what is considered to have mass appeal via corporate misconceptions that are invalidated by face to face interaction with peers, reading of posts on internet forums, exchanges with distant friends over e-mail, and so on. It should come as no surprise when shareholders make a loud bit of ruckus for their highly valuable intellectual properties, but it is disheartening to see content that might be considered even remotely strange always placed over to the side.

At this point you might stop me and say, "Wait, are you admitting that Twin Peaks does not have mass appeal? Or are you saying that it's simply treated as such?"

I would say it's very common to meet someone that's never watched Twin Peaks, but what is disturbing is how imbalanced the list of nominations appears in light of how many Twin Peaks fans also like some or all of the shows that were nominated. The list appears to indicate otherwise, as though Twin Peaks is quite removed from all that is palatable, and possibly also shot before a live audience, on Betacam, in a single 18 hour take, with soundtrack performed live on set, and all effects executed in camera.

It is noteworthy to observe how award shows typically feel so much more like the delivery of a promised reward, the distinction being that one receives an award for accomplishing a special achievement, while rewards are doled out to those who meet expectations.

----


To answer your question: I only saw one of the nominated Limited Series, and that was The Alienist. However based on that viewing alone, my answer is no, I don't think that The Return simply wasn't good enough for a nomination. I can't find anything in The Alienist that moves me. The entire thing was flat and dull and a chore to watch, and that is a real failure. It simply didn't work, and I can elaborate upon request, but I did enjoy the book back when it was released.

Anyway, I can't compare the two and then find any reason why The Alienist would be chosen above The Return, because even if you remove your personal feelings for the shows, my earlier observation about The Return -- "the great quality of effort put into so many aspects of its creation" -- actually applies to The Alienist as well. So what qualifies one above the other?


Good post! I don't think that The Return was unpalatable or so out-there that voters were repelled by it but I do think various aspects pretty much ensured that 'average' voters would have been confused by it. I am not versed in who exactly votes for the Emmy nominations even, how many people do and who are they? Maybe someone here knows.

However, season 3 faced a number of issues as I see it. I would argue that Cooper being in the Black Lodge is not a big enough hook for the average non-fan to grab them from the outset - I'm sure many were just perplexed from the get-go with this season.

The first two parts featured a lot of Cooper in the Lodge, the glass box scenario and the Hastings story. All of those aspects were anchored in a pretty-much fantastical world and bordered on horror-film territory. Compare that to a beginning set entirely in the real world of a girls' body washing up on a shore and the FBI arriving in town to investigate.

Kyle MacLachlan not getting nominated is a shame but not that surprising to me also in relation to the above. Although he is essentially Cooper in the initial Lodge scenes, he is restricted by the surrealism. Once he is immersed in the brilliant Mr C role, he is also very much in horror genre, fantasy territory. I LOVE his performance as Mr C, but I feel sadly that the Emmys wouldn't gravitate to a performance so removed from 'reality.'

Since Kyle also spent a lot of screen time as Dougie, he was restricted to a performance that didn't require an emotional range. Simply, I think the Emmys would have loved a very emotional performance from Kyle as Cooper but season 3 didn't give us that. Yes, we did experience a number of emotions with Kyle's performance in The Return ranging from fear, sadness to loss but I really think that these were often so inexplicably portrayed that voters would have been perplexed by MacLachlan's presence in the show.

Surely people here can admit that The Return was just perplexing and that results in problems when it comes to awards like these? I love Twin Peaks as a whole and enjoyed a lot of season 3. But this season feels its own thing and very dream-like - I would go so far as to say its maybe all Cooper and Laura's join dream - hence why nothing really makes clear sense and is so fragmented. A lot happens but nothing has clear consequences. A show where a young boy is killed in a road accident and then that event is barely significant in the rest of the story gives us huge questions - why is this happening? It's not so much 'its happening again' but WHAT IS HAPPENING and WHY? If I take everything as a projection of some internal struggle on Cooper's part relayed through the dreams of a dead girl, it almost makes sense!

Put simply, I feel sad for Kyle MacLachlan as he's such a great guy and damn fine actor. If they made a further season and he played Cooper showcasing a maelstrom of emotions - crying and sadness, anger, love and pure happiness at 'ducks on the lake' (at a riper age, I don't mean some re-tread of season 1) then I feel he would be truly recognised as the talent he is.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2142
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Emmy Nominations thread

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Fri Jul 13, 2018 4:02 am

I don’t think you need to display a “maelstrom of emotions” to be nominated for an acting Emmy. Jon Hamm was nominated for all eight seasons of Mad Men, and while he occasionally had big emotional moments (particularly in the two episodes he won for), it was mostly an extremely subtle, low-key performance where everything was below the surface, particularly in those early years. The same goes for many of this year’s nominees. The great Ed Harris was entertainingly badass but one-dimensional (by nature of the scripted material he was given) on Westworld—in fact, it was a similar role to Mr. C. I haven’t seen Homeland in years, but based on the time that I was watching the show, I sincerely doubt that Mandy Patinkin and F. Murray Abraham’s characters are wailing in tears, gnashing their teeth and pounding their chests on a regular basis.

I think the main problem is that the Emmys tend to follow established patterns and trends. Rarely do they honor something new and innovative the year it comes out (they’ve been getting a little better with this, as demonstrated by the prominence of Atlanta in the comedy nominations last year and this year—but not much better). Kyle’s performance is similar to Tatiana Maslany on Orphan Black, in that he plays several wildly different “characters” or versions of a character in the same show. Maslany was snubbed for two years, and the press were extremely critical of the Emmys for not nominating her. She was finally nominated for the third season and won for the fourth, I think. Give TP two more seasons of Kyle doing the exact same thing he did in S3, and I have no doubt he would get a nomination.
baxter
Posts: 378
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:12 pm

Re: Emmy Nominations thread

Postby baxter » Fri Jul 13, 2018 4:33 am

As a kid, I genuinely thought that an Oscar meant a film was great. Then Titanic won 11 and I never trusted them again. There is obviously a correlation between getting an Oscar and a film being good, but I've seen some shockingly bad Oscar winners (e.g. Ray, which I had to turn off because it was so formulaic). None of my favourite films have won Oscars (hastily looks up Rear Window: nominated for 5, no win!).

If the Emmys = the TV Oscars, it doesn't surprise me that they're shit!
User avatar
krishnanspace
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 5:15 am

Re: Emmy Nominations thread

Postby krishnanspace » Fri Jul 13, 2018 4:48 am

I felt sad for Kyle today. Poor guy tagged each and every Twin peaks nominee and congratulated them on Instagram.
I think the voters watched the BTS footage from the Blu Ray extras :D and not the actual show, thats why Twin Peaks is nominated for Technical awards.This is what I choose to believe now.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2142
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Emmy Nominations thread

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Fri Jul 13, 2018 4:51 am

I dunno, I gained newfound respect for Kyle’s work on the show after watching the BTS stuff. He did some incredible stuntwork and body/face acting for the FX shots!
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1618
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: Emmy Nominations thread

Postby mtwentz » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:27 am

Mr. Reindeer wrote:I dunno, I gained newfound respect for Kyle’s work on the show after watching the BTS stuff. He did some incredible stuntwork and body/face acting for the FX shots!


Well at least there are writers out there who recognize the snub. And Twin Peaks was not the only show to get snubbed.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/emm ... 35269.html

But the good news, that stellar piece of fine art, Fuller House, received an Emmy nomination.

Edit: It's clear Rosanne Barr's politics killed her show's chances of getting it's fair share of nominations. I am wondering if either Lynch's comments or the lack of political correctness in the show itself (some seeing it as misogynistic) could have hurt its chances.
"Dougie is COOPER? How the Hell is this!?"
LateReg
Posts: 735
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: Emmy Nominations thread

Postby LateReg » Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:12 am

There are a lot of articles about it. Some that are specifically about Twin Peaks and nothing else. So that's fun. And I don't think anything Lynch did or any lack of political correctness in the show hurt its chances, per se. Only its uncompromising, innovative nature did.

The other thing to remember is that besides the show's daring (and yes, I do think that the show is so out there in terms of strangeness and pacing and approach to narrative that many voters would not be in to it...its the weirdest drama to ever air, in most respects, and spits in the face of convention at almost every turn) many voters for either Emmys or Oscars don't do their due diligence and see all the things they need to see. Especially with TV, there's not enough time, and many voters will watch what they want rather than what they need. Coupled with all the shows that are grandfathered in (a large problem with the Emmys is the repeat nominees regardless of declines in quality), this means that many programs get left behind because they haven't been seen.

And here's the rub. The Return was the longest limited series by far. It's not unlike voters for such organizations to have not seen it, or enough of it. Screeners that were sent out to Academy members were for Parts 8 and 16. As said on the Obnoxious and Anonymous YouTube clip I came across yesterday, if voters have not seen the show but decided to watch what they were given as screeners, what are the chances Maclachlan would have been nominated based on those two Parts? Slim to none, I'd say. This is very much a cumulative work, and in the event that someone hasn't stuck with it, its merits nor those of Maclachlan's performance cannot be summed up by dropping in to two hours of it. Which is all to say that I think it had a lot working against it at such an awards show. It's wrong for it not to be nominated, but at least it was shown respect in other key categories. As with the Oscars, it's in some of those categories where true respect can be felt.

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return (Spoilers)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests