just finished watching the Emmy's. That Breaking Bad won again and again left me feeling disgusted. what did you think?-

[GeneL]

It seemed as if there was some kind of fix in the voting.

Personally, I found the show to be horribly dark and not at all entertaining.

As a fan of True Detective, I certainly felt that there were other more deserving shows than Breaking Bad.

I welcome your views.

[vision63]

I know you don't care for it and I know you're a man of good taste. But they can't really make enough awards to give "Breaking Bad." I really like "True Detective," but I don't see how that's any less dark my friend.

[davemchine]

I tried to watch Breaking Bad but it left me horribly depressed. I had to stop watching it. Maybe because there never seems to be any hope for the future.

[GeneL]

vision63 wrote:
I know you don't care for it and I know you're a man of good taste. But they can't really make enough awards to give "Breaking Bad." I really like "True Detective," but I don't see how that's any less dark my friend.

True, True Detective was a very dark story, but for me the acting of the main characters was exceptional.

There were several other shows and actors that I felt should have deserved the recognition.

I just wonder how much some kind of "politics" affects the continued awards for Breaking Bad?

I also wonder what affect these seemingly one-sided results have on the other candidates?

OTOH the French have a saying that roughly translates, "there's no arguing taste. "

[RAMd®d]

Maybe because there never seems to be any hope for the future.

This is probably the biggest thing that will turn me off from a show.

There has to be hope. Somewhere. Some how. At some point.

I thought True Detective was outstanding on many levels. As dark as it was, I believed there would be hope. And there was.

I never saw Breaking Bad so I can't offer any opinion. But I can understand that others can see something in a show that I don't that motivates them to hold and celebrate it in higher esteem.

Yet, I can also say my personal belief systems may (and have) prevented me from being truly objective about some shows, based on premise alone. I haven't the skills to be particularly analytical about various aspects of presenting a TV show or movie. Editing? Directorial considerations? Good acting, bad acting, range… I kind of have a handle on those. But I would thing those in the business, would better be able to judge, be they participants or critics. I think if Breaking Bad is truly unworthy of the number of awards, there will be some outcry among the more skilled observers.

When I watch award shows, I can only hope my favorites do well. If they don't, that's life.


OTOH the French have a saying that roughly translates, "there's no arguing taste. "

On some level, that's a truly ironic statement.

[GeneL]

I guess that some of my ire is based on having seen situations in life where someone wins constantly, every single time! That seems impossible, unless there's an unfair advantage.

It should get to a point where no one wants to "play" anymore.

Looking at some of the competitors in every single category, I saw many tremendously talented people.

I certainly don't see how there's a definable margin in performance among these actors that would give Breaking Bad the win, every time in every season.

I should think that it would get to a point, where at least some would say "screw it," especially if they felt that there was no honesty in the results.

That's the feeling that I have when I see Breaking Bad, its writers and its cast winning time after time after time.

I wonder if there's some allure for the losers, just in having your face on TV, even if you lose???

I just don't see how Breaking Bad is that great, compared to others in the same categories?

It did surprise me that a BBC entry won in two categories. So how does a great like Dame Maggie Smith lose to a Breaking Bad bimbo!

It seems to me that there would have to be an explanation which involves some kind of unfair trickery, don't you think? oapbox:

[Ombligo]

I could take or leave Breaking Bad (which is the case with most show), but when I did watch it was always sharply written and well done. I really liked the little comedic touches (Walt's taped on windshields was a favorite).

As for the awards - ehh, I really don't care.

[bazookaman]

It probably won't win next year.

[Will Collier]

I've never seen True Detective, but Breaking Bad was a great show, and unlike 99% of television dramas, they actually nailed the ending. Dunno what all they won last night (you couldn't pay me enough to get me to tune in to awards shows), but it was well-deserved. An exceptionally well-written, well-acted and well-produced show.

[RAMd®d]

It seems to me that there would have to be an explanation which involves some kind of unfair trickery, don't you think?

No.

If somebody have a craps roll over four hours, I don't see why a well written, acted, and directed show can't win on merit.

I won't deny that somebody might have voted for it because it was going off the air. People can have biases for a show as well as against one.

But I don't see a high number of awards as evidence of any kind of collusion or skullduggery.