sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 4, 2015 21:52:39 GMT
Normally, I would agree with you. Up until this past week, I would have for sure. But if the last two episodes can match or even come close to what we saw in episode 8, I think it has a chance because Mad Men wasn't that good this season, and nowhere near as good as Breaking Bad's final season. As far as Kit or Peter being nominated, I honestly don't see it happening for either of them...although I would say that Kit has had a better series this year than Peter by a mile. He's essentially become the new leading man of GoT between last season and this season. Of course, I'm sure they will submit him as a nominee (both of them), but I don't see a nomination for either of them, unless Kit's FTW scene is just outstanding beyond belief...but he's really not the right 'type' of role that gets nominated. Guess we'll see. It's going to take a lot more than just one good episode to convince me that it's possible, though, unless both match Hardhome in quality for it to even have a chance. I just don't see it. As for Kit, it's not going to happen. Peter will get his nomination as before, even though he has had a slow year. The Emmys are usually very forgiving when a favourite has a slow year. They don't (often) lose interest straight away, so I think his position is safe. If nothing else, the blind-voting that absolutely does take place will see him nominated. Kit was awesome in episode 8, but Jon Snow is really not the type of character to get awards recognition (some think he's boring and he's very internal) and Kit doesn't have a good enough reputation as an actor to overcome that. I know the GoT fandom has, largely, considered him quite good since season 4, but outwith this fandom (and in particular with the non-IMDb-dwelling cinephiles), he is still considered pretty shit. Well, I never said I thought that one good episode would win it. I said that if the next two episodes equal or surpass this episode in quality, GoT has a shot at it because Mad Men, on the whole, was pretty disappointing. I also never said that I thought Kit would ever win an Emmy, or even be nominated for one. I specifically said that the role is wrong for the Emmys...that they don't really give awards to 'hero' types...they prefer 'antiheroes' or villains. What I did say is that he was better than Peter this season...that's just easy to see, because Peter has been more of the annoying, never-shuts-up sidekick type. He does his best work when he's in charge of something, and this season, he was never in that role. Nor has he had the screentime he usually enjoys. Of all of the leading actors on the show, Kit has done the best work this season- he's had the most screentime and the best 'moments'. Even if he gets nothing this season, I doubt many people will forget his fight with the White Walker...I have a feeling that will be one of the iconic moments of the series, along with the birth of Dany's dragons. I don't think Peter deserves the nomination, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him get one. Lena and Sophie have both done a great job this season, but I think Lena will be the one to garner a nomination if she gets one at all, since there is a lot of stiff competition this year. All in all, I'm guessing this season will be much like last season Emmy-wise...all the VFX awards and little to no 'big' Emmy wins. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2015 23:29:48 GMT
|
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 4, 2015 23:58:51 GMT
I find it ridiculous that "Daredevil" is not on the list of nominees for Outstanding New Program. Absolutely the best new program of the year, imo. |
|
|
|
Post by day dreamer on Jun 5, 2015 0:29:14 GMT
The biggest shocker of the TCA noms is Daniel the Tiger's Neighborhood being nominated for Best Youth Program. I saw about 5 minutes of that show and wanted to go on a killing spree.
|
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 5, 2015 0:34:45 GMT
The biggest shocker of the TCA noms is Daniel the Tiger's Neighborhood being nominated for Best Youth Program. I saw about 5 minutes of that show and wanted to go on a killing spree. It's a pretty asinine show, but as a mother of two young children, let me assure you...there are many, many kids' shows that are much worse. |
|
|
|
Post by day dreamer on Jun 5, 2015 1:38:37 GMT
The biggest shocker of the TCA noms is Daniel the Tiger's Neighborhood being nominated for Best Youth Program. I saw about 5 minutes of that show and wanted to go on a killing spree. It's a pretty asinine show, but as a mother of two young children, let me assure you...there are many, many kids' shows that are much worse. I don't know, I haven't found one worst than that, though Sheriff Callie is close. (I have a toddler) |
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 5, 2015 1:43:31 GMT
It's a pretty asinine show, but as a mother of two young children, let me assure you...there are many, many kids' shows that are much worse. I don't know, I haven't found one worst than that, though Sheriff Callie is close. (I have a toddler) Caillou. At least Sheriff Callie and DTN have something to teach kids. Caillou is literally nothing more than watching a kid go about his daily routine with absolutely no point at all. No moral, nothing to teach, and the most boring characters someone could come up with. |
|
|
|
Post by day dreamer on Jun 5, 2015 1:54:30 GMT
I don't know, I haven't found one worst than that, though Sheriff Callie is close. (I have a toddler) Caillou. At least Sheriff Callie and DTN have something to teach kids. Caillou is literally nothing more than watching a kid go about his daily routine with absolutely no point at all. No moral, nothing to teach, and the most boring characters someone could come up with. OMG How could I forget Caillou. He's such a brat. My kid is three and he points out how naughty that kid is. And his parents are fucking weird. lol |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2015 2:00:42 GMT
A study was once carries out comparing Caillou with Spongebob to see how both shows impacted cognitive processes and attention span of kids. The study found that the kids who watched Caillou had a much greater mental abilities than Spongebob, so... it might suck but at least there's some evidence of it being good for your kids brains?  at least more so than Spongebob. (I have 5 nieces) |
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 5, 2015 2:16:54 GMT
A study was once carries out comparing Caillou with Spongebob to see how both shows impacted cognitive processes and attention span of kids. The study found that the kids who watched Caillou had a much greater mental abilities than Spongebob, so... it might suck but at least there's some evidence of it being good for your kids brains? at least more so than Spongebob. (I have 5 nieces) I don't let my kids watch Spongebob. The humor is vile and the kids learn nothing of value. My kids are 6 and 3, so they are way too young for anything like Spongebob. |
|
|
|
Post by kingeomer on Jun 6, 2015 13:52:24 GMT
I HATE CAILLOU. I refused to let my kids watch that show after a couple of episodes when I wanted to smack a cartoon kid. Mine are 7 and I find Spongebob to be super annoying (that laugh, oh my God, that laugh it gives me nightmares), so they don't watch it. They are into Bill Nye the Science Guy on Netflix right now, so that's good. My kids also like Paw Patrol which I think is a show that is supposed to "teach" kids something but really it's just way to get them to ask their parents for all the toys and playsets. Which totally worked on my kids. My daughter likes Sheriff Callie too, I don't mind that one and I am happy to hear Tangled will be a Disney series in 2017 with Mandy Moore and Zach Levi reprising their voices. My kids might be too old for it by that time though.
Back to Emmys--I love speculating about the Emmys by the way---I did not think Peter deserved a nomination for season 2 and 3, not over Alfie or Nikolaj who had stellar seasons those years. But the Emmys still nominated him. I'd be surprised if he doesn't get one this year. Personally, I don't think there is a male actor on the show this year who has had the screen time or the material to warrant a nod. The closest would be Alfie but his screen time has not been very much. Kit has definitely had the screen time, but as others said, his is not a part that the Emmy's typically reward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2015 14:01:18 GMT
Emmys are full of shite.
|
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 6, 2015 14:16:50 GMT
All award ceremonies are full of shit. But as there is no other way of judging art, it's the best we have. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2015 14:26:43 GMT
All award ceremonies are full of shit. But as there is no other way of judging art, it's the best we have. I would disagree with that. |
|
|
|
Post by MarcusAntonius on Jun 6, 2015 14:36:52 GMT
All award ceremonies are full of shit. But as there is no other way of judging art, it's the best we have. I would disagree with that. Well at least you didn't link imdb |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2015 14:37:58 GMT
Well at least you didn't link imdb For the record, I don't use either site I prefer to judge for myself, but... they are there. |
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 6, 2015 15:06:42 GMT
All award ceremonies are full of shit. But as there is no other way of judging art, it's the best we have. I would disagree with that. I wouldn't...and I say this as an artist who has had my work judged. I once won best in show for a piece that I thought wasn't as good as another piece that I submitted that won honorable mention. It's all subjective. There's no quantifiable way to judge it, since tastes differ. It's all about who is judging you. Ratings mean little by themselves, as reality shows have shown us. Reviews mean little by themselves, since they judge more about how enjoyable something was than how good it was. Summer blockbusters get good reviews but that doesn't mean they deserve awards. And awards ceremonies mean little as there is obvious bias towards certain genres. So, how do you truly judge whether something is great or not? Really, by looking at all of the factors plus some others, you can make a strong case for or against something. GoT is critically acclaimed, it is a ratings hit, it gets great reviews...but really, the legacy won't be any of that- it will be that GoT made the fantasy genre in television mainstream...something that grown ups and people from all walks of life could watch without being labeled a nerd. It's proven that fantasy isn't just dungeons and dragons, even when the story contains both. I think that will be its true award. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2015 15:22:15 GMT
I wouldn't...and I say this as an artist who has had my work judged. I once won best in show for a piece that I thought wasn't as good as another piece that I submitted that won honorable mention. It's all subjective. There's no quantifiable way to judge it, since tastes differ. It's all about who is judging you. Ratings mean little by themselves, as reality shows have shown us. Reviews mean little by themselves, since they judge more about how enjoyable something was than how good it was. Summer blockbusters get good reviews but that doesn't mean they deserve awards. And awards ceremonies mean little as there is obvious bias towards certain genres. So, how do you truly judge whether something is great or not? Really, by looking at all of the factors plus some others, you can make a strong case for or against something. GoT is critically acclaimed, it is a ratings hit, it gets great reviews...but really, the legacy won't be any of that- it will be that GoT made the fantasy genre in television mainstream...something that grown ups and people from all walks of life could watch without being labeled a nerd. It's proven that fantasy isn't just dungeons and dragons, even when the story contains both. I think that will be its true award. I don't really know why you made this post since all I was doing was responding to you saying that awards are the only thing we've got to judge art - I was just providing an alternative Also, see my previous post: I don't use either to judge art, I prefer to judge it myself. |
|
sj4iy
Grumpkin
"Et tu, Brute?"
Posts: 354
|
Post by sj4iy on Jun 6, 2015 16:22:13 GMT
I wouldn't...and I say this as an artist who has had my work judged. I once won best in show for a piece that I thought wasn't as good as another piece that I submitted that won honorable mention. It's all subjective. There's no quantifiable way to judge it, since tastes differ. It's all about who is judging you. Ratings mean little by themselves, as reality shows have shown us. Reviews mean little by themselves, since they judge more about how enjoyable something was than how good it was. Summer blockbusters get good reviews but that doesn't mean they deserve awards. And awards ceremonies mean little as there is obvious bias towards certain genres. So, how do you truly judge whether something is great or not? Really, by looking at all of the factors plus some others, you can make a strong case for or against something. GoT is critically acclaimed, it is a ratings hit, it gets great reviews...but really, the legacy won't be any of that- it will be that GoT made the fantasy genre in television mainstream...something that grown ups and people from all walks of life could watch without being labeled a nerd. It's proven that fantasy isn't just dungeons and dragons, even when the story contains both. I think that will be its true award. I don't really know why you made this post since all I was doing was responding to you saying that awards are the only thing we've got to judge art - I was just providing an alternative Also, see my previous post: I don't use either to judge art, I prefer to judge it myself. People lend more credence to awards than they do to ratings or reviews. That's just how it is. It wouldn't matter how popular or well reviewed something is if it had no awards to back up its claim. That's what I mean by 'the only thing we have to judge it'. Look at the Oscars...many of the films that win at the Oscars are small indie films that few people have seen. Yet those are considered 'better' artistically than the films that break records at the box office. It's just how our society works. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2015 16:30:32 GMT
I don't really know why you made this post since all I was doing was responding to you saying that awards are the only thing we've got to judge art - I was just providing an alternative Also, see my previous post: I don't use either to judge art, I prefer to judge it myself. People lend more credence to awards than they do to ratings or reviews. That's just how it is. It wouldn't matter how popular or well reviewed something is if it had no awards to back up its claim. That's what I mean by 'the only thing we have to judge it'. Look at the Oscars...many of the films that win at the Oscars are small indie films that few people have seen. Yet those are considered 'better' artistically than the films that break records at the box office. It's just how our society works. Again, I don't know why you're telling me this. I know.All I said was that awards are not the only thing you can use to judge art. That is true whether or not the masses respond more to awards or not. |
|
at least more so than Spongebob.
