If you want to argue they aren't worthy because they have given the performance before, that's a fair argument.

But saying they weren't convincing (those nominated) is rubbish. Their performances, by the way, should be independent of a writing failure - ie. religious bs.

Uhh...Lebron James!

Exactly.

And I'm sorry, but Matthew Fox has been earning Emmy nods for 6 years. Consistently. It's a shame it took him this long to be recognized.

But independent of how I feel about Foxy's work on LOST as a whole, he really did some nice work in S6. Does he deserve to beat out the other noms? I don't know. I haven't watched any of those other shows. But Matthew Fox at least deserves to be a part of the conversation.

That was my point about the cast and I said as much earlier.

Glad to see Friday Night Lights getting some respect...

Dude, come on.

You're asking a bunch of people that work full-time in television (and many of those same people work in film as well), to get home from a 10 hour day, then watch a shitload of television, some of it obscure and difficult to find?

I've never seen FNL or Breaking Bad or Glee or Sons of Anarchy or Damages or Dexter or Monk or the Good Wife or Nurse Jackie or Treme or True Blood (and the actress who played Maryanne lives 20 feet across the street from me) or The Cleaner and on and on and on. There just isn't enough time in the week (or year) to watch all of these shows.

Emmy voters vote for friends and actors that everyone recognizes. I'd bet money that the average Emmy voter hasn't even seen 25% of the shows and performances nominated - it's just too damn time consuming.

Sounds like we need a different organization with a different award to come to prominence so that we can properly acknowledge the work being done by cast and crew of the television medium. An organization whose voters aren't too busy to have an honest say.

I think the Golden Globes are better at recognizing excellent television than the Emmys.

Zach Gilford should have been nominated. Robbed.


Also, if Connie Britton doesn't win, Anna Gunn should.

Every smart person ever is in agreement that Gilford should have been nominated. A shame.

Katey Sagal was better than Anna Gunn, imo.

That's in my queue of shows.

I will say that I had trouble even recommending Gunn mostly because I don't think she's got the range. But compared to some of the nominees, I think she'd be a good fit as a nomination and a potential win.

It was a poor year for the category. There was Connie Britton (who has been, like, the best for four seasons now) and Katey Sagal and then... eh.

Can you actually give Britton a win without giving Chandler one?

Yes. See: the scene in season one, episode title "I Think We Should Have Sex," where Connie Britton gives an amazing mom speech to Julie.

Not that Kyle Chandler hasn't been incredible, but Brian Cranston, Jon Hamm and Hugh Laurie have been incredibler.