Game of Thrones Garners Emmy Nominations

[thefreefolk]

I'm very disappointed about Emilia Clarke being nominated and not Michelle Fairley. Out of all of the actresses on the show I feel like Emilia is the weakest, she's definitely been improving but you shouldn't get an award like this for being on par with the other actors. Michelle Fairley has been great every season and she definitely deserved a nomination more than Emilia.

Maybe she'll get another chance as Lady Stoneheart though??

As for Peter Dinklage I don't really feel like he deserved it either. He's gotten one every year and I understand being nominated (and winning once) for seasons one and two but at this point he's kind of just doing the same thing. He doesn't bring anything new.

Maybe if they had added in Tywin's death scene and we saw him act that out brilliantly then he'd deserve it more

But at this point I feel like NCW definitely deserved it more than Dinklage.

[Commander Jon Snow]

Happy for Emilia and disappointed for NCW but supporting actor is STACKED. Probably the deepest category so it's not too surprising.

[FaHaZe]

Buzz has a lot to do with it. Peter Dinklage and, to a lesser extent, Emilia Clarke, are the "face" of the series, so it makes sense that they'd be the "natural" choice for noms, especially in a series with as many characters--even "lead" characters--as GOT. They're both playing characters who have something which allows them to stand out from the rest of the GOT pack of leads (the joke is that casual non-book readers identify Dany as either "Khaleesi" or "Dragon Lady" rather than by her actual name). And they're both extremely charismatic actors (in my opinion), which helps them stand out in a series so crammed full of characters. Jaime, on the other hand, is one of the lead characters, but he's not nearly on Tyrion and Dany's level in terms of show buzz, recognition, iconic status, etc. etc., not by a long shot. Ditto for Michelle Fairley as Cat; the Red Wedding gave her an uptick in terms of buzz and recognition, but not enough. To a lot of non-viewers with the barest knowledge of the show, GOT is "that show with the little person (or some less PC term)" or "that show with the dragon lady."

Completely agree with your whole post, especially the bolded part. To be honest, that was my opinion on GoT before I really started watching the show. At the time (2011) I would watch HBO all day long and the hype for GoT was huge but to me it seemed like it was some cheap LOTR wannabe so I didn't bother with it. Despite all that, seeing a silver-white haired woman in rags surrounded by very different looking savages and speaking some weird sounding language did grab my attention eventually. And all the talk about dragons and the sight of 3 dragon eggs made it all more interesting. So yeah, I became a ASOIAF fan thanks to Dany.

I'm not trying to sound like a tool here and no offence to Emilia Clarke her acting has vastly improved but she's the face of the show because she is incredibly beautiful she stands out in what can be considered a good looking cast Clarke also has a distinctly seperate storyline to any other characters which makes her more interesting to show watchers

Well, not just her beauty, but the hair has a lot to do with it :P (it may sound ridiculous, but it's true). I mean, when was the last time people saw a hot, young woman with long, white hair on a TV show? The wig really makes her stand out, which is why Dany is most likely to be remembered of all the characters.

Needless to say, I'm really happy for Emilia. I didn't expect the nomination, since everyone was predicting Michelle to take the spot. I do love MF and I think it's a shame they had to choose between her and Emilia. Both should have been nominated.

Now I'm dreaming of an Outstanding Drama Series win. Or an Outstanding Supporting Actress win. Or both :drool: I'm sure GoT will win some of the technical awards but it would be nice if it received some recognition in the more popular categories too (writing, acting).

[7V3N]

Michelle Fairley's role was too minimized by the showrunners for her to be nominated. Every time she tried to speak, she was shut up by someone. She was given very little screentime, but took advantage of it. Her facial expressions and the looks she gave through her eyes were amazing, even when she didn't get the chance to speak. The Red Wedding gave her the screentime she deserved, but it was only one episode. She was amazing, and always has been, but she never got the opportunities she deserved--not since the first season anyway.

[Aslerys]

I'm happy for Emilia but I'm also sad for Michelle Fairley :( Do you think that she has any chance at the Globes?

[oierem]

Michelle Fairley's role was too minimized by the showrunners for her to be nominated. Every time she tried to speak, she was shut up by someone. She was given very little screentime, but took advantage of it. Her facial expressions and the looks she gave through her eyes were amazing, even when she didn't get the chance to speak. The Red Wedding gave her the screentime she deserved, but it was only one episode. She was amazing, and always has been, but she never got the opportunities she deserved--not since the first season anyway.

As far as I know, the actors get nominated just for one episode, so that's not a reason.

[binga]

Emilia had an iconic moment this season, probably the highlight of season 3, when she took the unsullied and killed the slave masters. It was an extremely badass girl power type of moment and she did it brilliantly. Maybe that is what set her apart.

[7V3N]

As far as I know, the actors get nominated just for one episode, so that's not a reason.

No that's not true. They simply are showcased with an episode. Like a sample for their work.

[Queen Elsa]

Well, not just her beauty, but the hair has a lot to do with it :P (it may sound ridiculous, but it's true). I mean, when was the last time people saw a hot, young woman with long, white hair on a TV show? The wig really makes her stand out, which is why Dany is most likely to be remembered of all the characters.

True. So when people see chicks wearing a ragged dothraki costume with a tiny dragon pinned on their shoulders during halloween, they'll know that character is from the show GOT.

[Newstar]

Bryan Cogman was essentially a working actor who couldn't find much work and drifted into writing assistants gigs to pay the bills. Who knew he would have developed into the strongest writer on staff? He did attend Julliard so perhaps that formal drama training really helped. I think it also helps that he gets to focus on one (and now just 2 episodes) a season.

He also has very detailed knowledge of the books, and it shows.

This is my big beef with the haphazard quality of Benioff and Weiss writing. They are writing far too much and given they also need to be acting as editors for the other writers (plus all the other showrunner duties), they aren't spending enough time breaking stories correctly and re(writing) their own work. I wasn't a huge fan of Vanessa Taylor, but she definitely understood how to craft a tv screenplay and rarely had the sluggish pacing issues that often occur with Benioff and Weiss. I think it would make far more sense for Benioff and Weiss to limit themselves to 2 episodes per season as the primary writers and then have enough writers on staff (presumably another 4 or 5 if you count George) to pick up another 2 episodes each.

Is it that they're taking on too much in the writing department or that they're just not super experienced when it comes to TV scripts? It might just be that they're playing it by ear, and it shows. If their uneven scripts are due to their inexperience, then if they restricted themselves to two episodes per season, you might just wind up with two uneven episodes.

I don't think a bigger group of writers would really serve the story or work very well as it did on a show like Breaking Bad, mostly because GOT is an adaptation and they have to chew over every element of the original to try to wrestle it into TV format. Breaking Bad is a lot more freeform because they have the luxury of throwing around ideas to see what sticks and don't have to appease whiny book purists. I think anything more than maybe one additional writer to add to the current lineup (being D&D, GRRM, and Cogman) would lead to a "too many cooks"-type situation. We already have two competing visions of the material--GRRM's original, and D&D's take (and they've pretty clearly made the adaptation their own, for better or for worse)--and three "voices" (D&D, Cogman, and of course GRRM's) with their own ways of writing the characters, their own styles, etc. If there's going to be any coherence to the material--the material being a sprawling, epic tale with hundreds of characters and 30ish major characters in play at any given time--at all, they need to eliminate the clutter of a bunch of additional writers who have their own ways of writing for TV, their own styles, their own take on the books and the characters (assuming they've read the books), etc. Breaking Bad has a comparatively puny cast of characters, so there's not nearly as much worry about the larger writing staff being able to achieve some sort of coherence and continuity in the characters' voices, plotting, etc.

I think D&D absolutely need to be as hands-on as they are with the writing. A supervisory role with the remainder largely delegated out to a large writing staff rather than a major writing role is just not going to fly with this type of story. With a story this big, and with a cast of characters this big, there needs to be one strong, powerful, coherent vision driving the whole thing, or else the whole thing will fall apart, and that unified vision is not going to happen with a big writing staff. We have that vision with D&D, for better or for worse (since they clearly have their own opinions about characters, relationships, etc.), and it filters through to every aspect of the show, including the writing. It's not ideal, since D&D are not GRRM--the author of the source material who has TV writing experience, although not as much as I had thought--and since they're not, say, Aaron Sorkin or Joss Whedon, a fantastically talented TV writer with tons of experience in TV who has previously churned out script after brilliant script on several critically acclaimed shows, but I think it pretty much has to be the way it is. A bigger writing staff just wouldn't work for this type of project.

(While we're talking about Aaron Sorkin and Joss Whedon, they were both showrunners who famously either wrote or extensively rewrote every script for every episode for the seasons they were on the show, even beyond what D&D did, and the shows' quality took a nosedive after they left. Not just because Whedon and Sorkin were far more talented than the writers who picked up where they left off, but because that strong, unified vision from a single person of the show, the characters, the canon, etc. was gone.)

Assuming Vanessa Taylor got the boot and didn't leave on her own for other reasons, I don't think it's a coincidence that Bryan Cogman, a writer with virtually no TV experience who knows the books cold, fit in better than Vanessa Taylor, a writer with considerable TV experience who lacked Cogman's extensive knowledge of the books. Unfortunately, if they looked to grow the writing staff, they'd probably wind up with more Vanessa Taylors, not more Bryan Cogmans (see also Jane Espenson, another writer with a lot of TV experience and a lot of genre experience, who didn't stick around very long, either). Another reason why growing the writing staff isn't a smart move.

I'd add as a final point that D&D wrote seven episodes in Season 1, where many claim their writing was supposedly the strongest, and also cowrote the teleplay for one with Jane Espenson. So that tends to put the lie to the argument that their writing is suffering because of the number of episodes they've taken on, since they took on the same number of episodes in Season 3 as in Season 1 (unless you count the Espenson episode, in which case they wrote more in Season 1).

[Lord of Beyond the Wall]

The nomination of Emilia Clarke is the proof that Emmy voters actually watch the show, for most people Lena Heady, Natalie Dormer and Michelle Farley had more showy and baity characters than Clarke.

[pleonasm]

...

Is it that they're taking on too much in the writing department or that they're just not super experienced when it comes to TV scripts? It might just be that they're playing it by ear, and it shows. If their uneven scripts are due to their inexperience, then if they restricted themselves to two episodes per season, you might just wind up with two uneven episodes...

I think D&D absolutely need to be as hands-on as they are with the writing. A supervisory role with the remainder largely delegated out to a large writing staff rather than a major writing role is just not going to fly with this type of story. With a story this big, and with a cast of characters this big, there needs to be one strong, powerful, coherent vision driving the whole thing, or else the whole thing will fall apart, and that unified vision is not going to happen with a big writing staff.

Inexperience, especially with regards to serialized television is an issue, but so is lack of time. It's also possible to have an active hand's on role rewriting or reworking other writers when you are the showrunner(s) if you have the time to do so. And I think time is the issue. If you are too busy writing your own material how much effort is given to rewrite your own material and edit everyone else? Not a lot.

Based upon the interviews I've read with Bryan Cogman and Vanessa Taylor's commentary on the DVD's, I have an inkling on how they are breaking stories for the series. Each writer (or in the case of Benioff and Weiss - a writing team) is handed a major character (i.e. "Arya") or two or storyline ("Kings Landing", etc...) and then they break their season's stories. These are then consolidated into ten episodes and each writer is tasked with writing the respective scripts. I don't want to second guess their process, but its clear they are having some issues when we have heard of whole sequences getting shifted back and forth into different episodes because of pacing issues, lack of action, etc, etc... And most of this is getting identified post production, which suggests it was missed during pre production and during the script reads with the cast. This is not atypical of most television series.

Its speculation, but I think additional writers, not less would be more helpful. Most of the best shows produced in the last decade have had really strong writer's rooms even if they are lead by a ridiculously talented show runner (David Chase, Matt Weiner, Vince Gilligan, etc...) who is actively rewriting lots of the scripts.

And the writers don't necessarily need to be super fans of the books, just talented writers. Any experienced tv writer with some cojones would have called out Benioff and Weiss when they put together their plan for the Theon arc for season 3. Dan and Dave - The mystery of who is torturing Theon isn't something the audience would be invested in. Why is it eating up so much screentime? The audience has seen torture on tv and film dozens of times in the last decade - how are we going to differentiate ourselves? Isn't there a better way to tell this storyline? etc, etc, etc... More voices in the room is usually more helpful and not less. This is critical given I don't believe George gets involved in the process until the episode's story lines have been defined. Its' too late in the process for him to help. Hence, why so many people were disappointed in his episode this year. He had so little to work with.

I'd add as a final point that D&D wrote seven episodes in Season 1, where many claim their writing was supposedly the strongest, and also cowrote the teleplay for one with Jane Espenson. So that tends to put the lie to the argument that their writing is suffering because of the number of episodes they've taken on, since they took on the same number of episodes in Season 3 as in Season 1 (unless you count the Espenson episode, in which case they wrotemore in Season 1)

I think there is the consensus season 1 is the most faithful season to the books, but there is hardly a consensus that its an example of strong writing throughout. Many episodes ran short on running time and scenes had to be added in at the last moment (i.e. Visery's in the bathtub) or the most simplistic versions of scenes were crafted (the infamous Littlefinger moustache twirling sexposition scene). There are some well crafted scenes in season 1, definitely some great performances, but its hardly at the level of great writing overall.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

Maisie Williams and Michelle Fairley not having Emmy nominations really is disappointing

[The Ghost of Winter]

I think Maisie should be nominated some day, I do think she's a splendid little actress. Unfortunately I think her age may be an issue for the Emmys.

If we're going to bring up other shows, I'm surprised that neither Emmy Rossum nor William H. Macy have been nominated for Shameless yet.

[Dragonstoned]

Glad that Benioff gave a shout-out to Ramin Djawadi.

edit: John Bradley seems to have a really good grasp of his character too.

[Padraig]

*wrong thread*

[boojam]

Inexperience, especially with regards to serialized television is an issue, but so is lack of time. It's also possible to have an active hand's on role rewriting or reworking other writers when you are the showrunner(s) if you have the time to do so. And I think time is the issue. If you are too busy writing your own material how much effort is given to rewrite your own material and edit everyone else? Not a lot.

Based upon the interviews I've read with Bryan Cogman and Vanessa Taylor's commentary on the DVD's, I have an inkling on how they are breaking stories for the series. Each writer (or in the case of Benioff and Weiss - a writing team) is handed a major character (i.e. "Arya") or two or storyline ("Kings Landing", etc...) and then they break their season's stories. These are then consolidated into ten episodes and each writer is tasked with writing the respective scripts. I don't want to second guess their process, but its clear they are having some issues when we have heard of whole sequences getting shifted back and forth into different episodes because of pacing issues, lack of action, etc, etc... And most of this is getting identified post production, which suggests it was missed during pre production and during the script reads with the cast. This is not atypical of most television series.

Its speculation, but I think additional writers, not less would be more helpful. Most of the best shows produced in the last decade have had really strong writer's rooms even if they are lead by a ridiculously talented show runner (David Chase, Matt Weiner, Vince Gilligan, etc...) who is actively rewriting lots of the scripts.

Yes I like these observations.

As I have said before Benioff and Weiss never really do an awful teleplay, but one can see , in adaptation, they focus on certain moments , I mean they talked about the RW since season 1. It's not like they ignore the overall global plot (a funny thing to say since even GRRM will weave in an out of plot and character driven narrative). However even when the dialog is good there is some drift , such as the story on the East in season 2.

I really have never heard how they work, seems seasons 1 and 2 it was Dave and Dan exclusively who laid out plan , broke out the episodes (apparently with some consultation with GRRM) and then went over it with Cogman and Taylor (and GRRM, tho, from the stories George tells sounds as if he is the first one to turn in a teleplay).

Well we know for season 4 Bryan was with Dave and Dan on the Santa Fe visit , so maybe he has a hand in more overall planning now.

Lot of good teleplay and screenwriters around, there is probably another 'Bryan Cogman' out there.

I think it would help pre-production a lot if D and D only wrote 5 episodes a season.

One thing we leave out of this discussion is the directors, they must have inputs to a teleplay, with the exception of Neil Marshall in season 2 , seems all have been on board for quite some time.

It will be interesting , season 4, for Marshall , he has known for some while about his episode, I expect to see his influence there more than he had for Blackwater.

[Lord of Beyond the Wall]

Do you know what little show is in the Top-40 of the Best Written TV Series of All Time according to the WGA? http://www.wga.org/content/default.aspx?id=4925

[Tirilei]

While I don't dislike Emilia Clarke (as some of the writers here did in the past), I think it's ridiculous that she, of all actors, was nominated. Really don't know what she did that was so oustanding. She is still learning as an actress, but so far her acting has been mediocre at best. Maybe she was nominated by a bunch of guys for looking sexy?

[Gears of the Beast]

Do you know what little show is in the Top-40 of the Best Written TV Series of All Time according to the WGA? http://www.wga.org/c...lt.aspx?id=4925

My initial reaction is why the fuck isn't Breaking Bad number 1?! My 2nd reaction is why the fuck isn't South Park number 2!? My 3rd reaction is why the fuck isn't Archer on the list!?

So yeah...fuck that list and everything about it.