Originally posted by lotjxI am ok with Parsons winning and ecstatic about Dinklage. The rest is typical Emmy bullshit. They find a show they love like Frasier, 30 Rock, West Wing and others that they just give awards to even though they are past the expiration date. Mad Men and Modern Family fall into these categories.
OK, I can't sit here and let you say that about The West Wing. The West Wing only won the big awards when Sorkin was still writing it, and while the last season he wrote wasn't quite as good as the earlier ones, it was still great, great television. Over the three years after he left, TWW won all of three Emmys: a Best Actress for Allison Janney, a Best Supporting Actor for Alan Alda, and a sound mixing award. Hardly unreasonable. Now, you want to talk about 24 winning Best Drama after it had gotten to be a total cartoon, that's another story.
And, really, Modern Family being past its expiration date? This was its *second* season. And it was better than the first, for the most part.
Jim Parsons is much, much better than Steve Carell.
I continue to find it unfathomable that John Noble isn't even being nominated for his work on Fringe; he's simply the best actor on television, and anyone who can't see that shouldn't get a vote. But if someone other than Noble has to win Best Supporting Actor in a Drama (I'm assuming that's where he's being submitted, although I'd say he really is a lead), I'd want it to be Peter Dinklage. Although there were a lot of good choices in that category.
I only saw the first episode, but it had probably the single worst script I've ever seen performed on television. The actors all tried really hard with what they were given, but the dialogue and scenarios were just really awkward and unbelievable.