Well thank goodness Neil Patrick Harris and John Hodgman were a kick, huh? Because the list of Emmy winners themselves did nothing to shake up the ceremony this year. While the smooth host won praise and the telecast did seem fresher overall — loved the way they broke it into comedy, reality, miniseries/movie, and drama, all the better to clean the kitchen during the miniseries/movie segment — the actual choices were a bit of a yawn. That’s not to say they weren’t absolutely right in most major cases: 30 Rock (cast pictured) and Mad Men are truly worthy of praise, and furthermore, they still don’t get ratings worthy of their greatness. But for the second year in a row, the pair took the top prizes. (It was 30 Rock’s third consecutive best comedy win, putting it in the rare company of Taxi, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, All in the Family, and Frasier.) Also repeating from last year: Glenn Close as best actress in a drama for Damages, Bryan Cranston as best actor in a drama for Breaking Bad, Alec Baldwin as best actor in a comedy for 30 Rock, Jeff Probst for best reality host for Survivor. And The Amazing Race and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, again? Both for the seventh time? Even producer Bert Van Munster said, “I don’t know what to say anymore.”
The only big surprises, really, were Kristin Chenoweth for the now-dead Pushing Daisies and Jon Cryer for Two and a Half Men. And I gotta admit: I was kind-of pulling for the 30 Rockers in both those categories. But at least they spiced things up. Particularly Chenoweth, who used her teary acceptance speech to campaign for work: “I’m unemployed now, so I’d like to be on Mad Men.” Especially if it wins again next year.
What did you think, PopWatchers? Do you wish there were more surprise winners, or did the Emmys get it just right?
Photo credit: Mark J. Terrill/ AP Images
Comments (1-30) of 85 Add your comment
They got it right re: Bryan Cranston, IMO. He is absolutely incredible on “Breaking Bad” and I’m so glad to see him (and the show) get recognition.
While I support shows receiving the “Best” awards year after year since they can be very different from year to year based on the writers and actors employed, I’ve long held the belief that an actor should only win an Emmy (or Golden Globe, etc.) once for the same role. I appreciate that characters mature and take new directions, but it doesn’t make sense to keep handing them the same awards year in and year out for basically the same work. (If I recall, Candice Bergan finally pulled out of the Best Actress Comedy race after 5 wins almost out of embarassment). A one-win-only policy clears the way for exceptionally gifted but overlooked performances (Michael C. Hall! Elisabeth Moss!) to be recognized with a little hardware.
I agree completely. Plus, I don’t know if you can judge accurately from an episode or two who the best actor/actress was. It ignores completely the entire seasonal body of work. Alec B is brilliant as Jack D, but one emmy per person per character seems fair to me.
The award is for the best actor for that year. If the best actor this year is same as the best actor for last year, then they should win it again.
Well said EricDallas!
I agree with Eric – if you’ve given the best performance – you should win!
I totally agree. It would leave room for others who are virtually ignored (basically anyone on Friday Night Lights). Of course, they might still be ignored, but it’s worth a shot.
I love 30 Rock I really do but Alec Baldwin winning for it again, Jim Parsons deserved it. There is a lot of love for Parsons on this site and around the net so that is a good thing. Who knows next year could be a good year for him.
Agreed Jack. Jim Parsons is an incredible force on Big Bang Theory. Hopefully, next year, he nabs it. As well as the much under-appreciated Neil Patrick Harris.
I agree. I love Alec, but I was pulling for Jim. The Big Bang Theory is hilarious, and it would be nice to see someone knew win.
Yep. Everyone nominated deserved to win, but I was hoping this was Parsons’ year.
I agree…the Emmy belonged to Jim Parsons. I love Alec Baldwin and he’s funny on “30 Rock,” but he’s won plenty of awards already. Geez, he’s about to become the new Tony Shalhoub!!
This is only Alec Baldwin’s second Emmy for 30 Rock. He didn’t win for the first season, so to say he’s won this award too much is ridiculous.
I disagree with you guys: Alec Baldwin was hysterical last season on 30 Rock and it was probably one of his strongest seasons to date. Generalissamo anyone?
I have never been a fan of BBT and I’m 31, even I realize that younger shows (catering to 20somethings) often don’t win Best Comedy..if anything HIMYM is way overdue. Too many old fogies in the Acadmey to appreciate varying good humor IMO
i thought the same, there are so many other shows that could of been at least nominated and the same old song and dance wins again. it was a very boring awards ceremony that lacked in every major category. thumbs down, booo and a 2 out of 10.
Yeah, the Amazing Race and Daily show thing is getting ridiculous. There is no way they have been consistently the best for 7 years. I was hoping Wiig and Rainn Wilson to win (or maybe Morgan or McBrayer of 30 Rock) for supporting. I think Steve Carrell and really anyone else in the Best Actor-Drama should have won. Alec Baldwin is great and 30 Rock is my favorite show, but Steve deserves it!
The Amazing Race winning is ridiculous when the show sucks. There were shows way better than it in the same category. On the other hand Jon Stewart is hilarious. He should keep on winning. And my own personal input, Family Guy is way funnier than 30 Rock, it deserved to win.
Can you spell Bryan Cranston right? Sheesh, the guy is a two-time Emmy winner.
Here’s an idea, how about proofreading your title before posting it? ‘Man Men’ sounds like something on LOGO. Way to go EW.
Notice how they haven’t changed it yet? Aye-yi-yi, what is happening to our basic spelling skills? These people are supposed to be “journalists”? Ugh.
ummm its called MAD MEN not MAN MEN…whoops
I definitely think there should be a limit on how many times a show/actor can win – or at least, a limit on the consecutive wins. Like, if you’ve won twice in a row, you’re out of the running next year. I feel like at this point, it’s the accepted wisdom that 30 Rock is the best sitcom, so nothing else has a chance. Also, the Daily Show? Really? Colbert deserves the award so much more!
I agree…. especially after Colbert’s heartfelt and hilarious trip to Iraq.
The Iraq shows were not eligible this year, actually.
I agree completely! I think the Emmy committee isn’t smart enough to ” get” the humor of Colbert!
You didn’t think Cherry Jones’s win was a surprise? Everyone was predicting Chandra Wilson or Hope Davis. Or Toni Collette? Tina Fey was the favorite. Both were certainly deserving (as were the rest of the nominees) but not expected.
Yes, I hate this trend of repeat winners. I fast forwarded through most of the show on my DVR.
I was so frustrated with all the repeats! When the Emmys get in a rut, they really get in a rut. If Lost doesn’t win next year I’m gonna be really ticked off. Thank goodness Michael Emerson won!
uh, repeat – Lost won a couple of years ago for the first season
I am not going to be happy with the Emmy’s until NPH, Jim Parsons, Rainn Wilson, and Michael C. Hall all have Emmy’s. They deserve them and it is getting old that the same ol people keep winnig.
I don’t think we should be admonishing the voters for awarding quality, quite the contrary. Why the hate for the repeat winners? So we should IGNORE quality? So the solution is to make mediocre television, because one day, you’ll get the consolation prize. Um, NO!
Maybe shows should keep upping their games like Mad Men and 30 Rock. And Cranston, btw.
There should NOT be a limit, quality and talent should always win in the end.
It is always the same shows-so many other shows and actors need to be regonized
Seven years in a row is way too many. As much as I hate to agree with Jeff Probst about anything, The Amazing Race and the Daily Show both need to pull an Oprah. Terry O’Quinn also believes someone should only win once for the same role, so he took himself out of the running after he won. It made me like him even more. I love Bryan Cranston and all but he has 2 while Hugh Laurie, Michael C. Hall, and Jon Hamm have none. That ain’t right.
I’m sorry, but “30 Rock” and “Mad Men” did NOT deserve to win again this year. “Lost” should have won, hands down, and every other comedy show nominated was funnier and better than 30 Rock.
As for repeat winners for acting, I definitely agree that it’s boring and uncalled for, especially since the actors’ performances don’t really change. Also, it’s the reason why geniuses like Hugh Laurie and Steve Carell have never won an Emmy, despite giving some of the most iconic TV performances this decade. There should absolutely be a limit on the number of times an actor can win.
I wonder if “Lost” will take the big prize in its final season.
Here’s hoping!
My hopeful prediction is that “Lost” will finally be recognized after its final season, in much the same way that “Return of the King” won Oscars at the conclusion of the “Lord Of The Rings” trilogy. At least I won’t have to worry about it losing to “Boston Legal” next year : )
If you only reward someone once and then pull their name, it cheapens the award. It becomes just a very shiny, very heavy consolation prize.
While talent and everyone’s personal tastes are subjective, people can’t ignore the vast awards and praise other circuits have given the winning shows. Mad Men and 30 Rock have Emmys AND Golden Globes AND Peabodys AND TCA wins. I really don’t see House or The Office getting the prestigious Peabody any time soon.
Again, talent keeps winning and keeps getting accolades AS IT WELL SHOULD.
I totally agree with this. If you pull a name after a win, the remaining contenders are no longer competing with the best.
Ummm…both The Office and House have Peabody awards. And Golden Globe awards. And TCA awards. Do a little research before you make a comment like that. And it’s not like 30 Rock and Mad Men exist in some special “critically-praised” heaven all by themselves. The only difference is that the Emmys haven’t recognized other, more deserving shows(IMO) shows in the past couple of years.
Zachary, check again,. House has ZERO Peabody awards. Nada. none. Sorry.Same goes for the Office. Take your own advice and check. IMDb is your friend.
But you were right, the Office does have a couple of TCA wins and Hugh Laurie (not the show) 2 TCA wins. My bad on that.
Because the IMDb can do no wrong, right?
Try Wiki. Both shows have Peabody awards and have articles that back this info up. In fact, here’s a list of winners, House on pg 80 and The Office on pg 83:
http://www.peabody.uga.edu/winners/PeabodyWinnersBook.pdf
Nice try, but you fail again.
oh suh-nap, son! zach FTW
House won the Peabody in 2005. The Office won in 2006. Of course, they also gave a Peabody to Entourage and Boston Legal, so that isn’t always the best judge of great television.
I really have no idea where people are getting this! I checked IMDb and USA Today and the Peabody website. The only “recognizeable” show to get it those years was the Daily Show.
http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Peabody_Awards/2006
http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Peabody_Awards/2005
I thought there were quite a few surprises. But even when it wasn’t, all the winners were worthy. Frankly, I would be so stressed if I had to choose between, say, Brian Cranston and Jon Hamm. I may have been pulling for NPH and Jim Parsons, but I love all the other actors in their categories, too.
The Emmys are the only award show that truly face this problem, and while I don’t think you should be able to restrict the number of Emmys a show or even actor wins, something does need to be done differently. When voters hit something, they tend to get stuck there. 30 Rock had a weaker season, and didn’t deserve a “3-peat”, and agree with all the complaints about Alec Baldwin.
I thought Toni Collette and Cherry Jones were both big surprises.
Mad Men and 30 Rock were no surprise, but they both deserved to win.
Funny you would clean your kitchen while the movie/miniseries category was on. If you watched it, you would have seen the best acting of the entire season. Also, Jim Parsons should have won best comedy actor.
there should definitely be some kind of limit on the number of wins for one show or actor and that number should be 3
Cranston may have won before but that doesn’t mean he isn’t the most deserving actor on the screen. He kicks serious ass on ‘Breaking Bad’, a show that really should’ve dethroned ‘Mad Men’ – which I love – as the Drama of the Year.
I couldn’t agree more on everything you just said. I also thought Aaron Paul was robbed, he should have gotten Best Supporting Actor after his amazing season.
THANK YOU!!!!
I have to wonder, is there a secret understanding among Emmy voters that if something won last year it has to have faltered significantly (like a show that goes off the rails or jumps the shark), or someone/something else has to be undeniably more awesome in order to usurp the winner… like, you hold the title until something better comes along or until you screw up. Maybe it doesn’t happen after one win, but after two years in a row, it becomes and understood dynasty that must be forcibly unseated?
I would argue with that logic. Look to a show like “ER”. As the quality declined (and it did, considerably), so did the award nominations over time.
I agree that Bryan Cranston richly deserved his second Emmy for BREAKING BAD. Quite simply some of the best acting work I have ever seen in a series. While I am also a big fan of all the other nominees, in my opinion none of them can touch Cranston’s work this season. Brilliant.
While I may not agree with the choice, if someone is the best year over year, they should win every year. If Alec Baldwin is the best every year, why shouldn’t he win every year?
I’m with Mira – the quality of the winners is more important than how boring the Emmys are. They’re still going to be kind of boring even if some unexpected win takes up all of thirty-five seconds (or whatever the new limit on speeches is).
I’d have liked to see (now-defunct) Life and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles honored, at the very least with an acting award for Garrett Dillahunt. Outstanding dramas, outstanding acting, writing and directing – Life’s episode “Badge Bunny” and TSCC’s end-of-season/series story arc from the Jessie backstory episode onward was probably the best TV I’ve seen period, regardless of genre or whether or not it was on cable.
I will say this about the Emmys: They continue to ave an uneasy relationship with sci-fi and THAT is always disappointing. How many other awards has BSG won? It was easily one of the best things on television!
I keep banging my head about these things: Amazing Race’s continued streak (um, Project runway has a Peabody), BSG and Friday Night Light’s continued omissions (also Peabody and TCA winners). The Wire went off the air as the most critically lauded series, but only one big Emmy nomination.
The Emmys have some flaws to be certain, but it’s an awards show for qaulity, not popularity (go to the People’s Choice awards for that, or hey, your popular show doesn’t run the risk of cancellation, that’s a reward, no?). The Emmys’ attempt to keep up a standard of excellence shouldn’t be something they re-do, even if it makes the 35-second speech “old hat.” The quality SHOULD show.
Well, I think Mad Men deserved their win (the second season was just as good, if not better, than the first Emmy-winning season), but 30 Rock hasn’t really been funny on a consistent basis since the end of their first season. If anything, The Big Bang Theory deserved to win Best Comedy Series for delivering funny episode after funny episode every week for their second season. The repeat winners at the Emmys just rob it of any sort of suspense and has been a long-time problem that just never seems to go away (it’s been in existence since the Frasier years).
Neil Patrick Harris and Jim Parsons were robbed. Quite frankly I suspect that a bunch of voters don’t even bother watching the shows they are voting for (or against)