Game of Thrones Garners Emmy Nominations

[Pinkie Baelish]

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.

Seinfeld > South Park.

I have yet to watch The Sopranos, but based on the things I've heard about it, it's probably even better than Breaking Bad(BB's biggest asset has always been the acting, which is even more fantastic than the writing).

It's good to see GOT up on that list, although it'll be interesting to see what the show's detractors have to say about that.

[Gears of the Beast]

Seinfeld > South Park.

I have yet to watch The Sopranos, but based on the things I've heard about it, it's probably even better than Breaking Bad(BB's biggest asset has always been the acting, which is even more fantastic than the writing).

It's good to see GOT up on that list, although it'll be interesting to see what the show's detractors have to say about that.

Not only is South Park better than Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm is even better than Seinfeld.

[Dragonstoned]

A #40 placing for GoT on that list seems fair.

[boojam]

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

As expected a lot of 'modern' shows on there.

For Twilight Zone , after the first season, it was Charles Beaumont, Richard Matheson who save Rod Serling's bacon the rest of the series. (Matheson , who just died, is one of the few prose writers who evolved into an icon as a screenplay and teleplay writer.)

Hard to believe ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS is down at 79 , it should be up around Twilight Zone's level, goodness so many good teleplays, even Ray Bradbury in the mix!

Glad someone remembered PLAYHOUSE 90, a gem of an anthology show.

Anthologies as TV, which for reasons that pass beyond my understanding, have had no audience for about 50 years!

O man! no Have Gun Will Travel, lord! that was light years ahead of SGT. BILKO, which I don't think should even be on there!

Lonesome Dove at 96! That is scandalous!

If they are going to include Band of Brothers , which was a game changer, the recent Pacific should be there too.

[pleonasm]

I am usually pretty suspicious of "Best of" polls. As others have noted, there is definitely a recency bias, but how exactly does one grade or compare the 35+ seasons of writing of Saturday Night Live with all its ups and downs vs. 1 season of My So Called Life or the 2 seasons of Twin Peaks? Do they dock points for tv series that went on far too long and went into a creative tailspin (i.e Homicide, LA Law, etc...)? And how does one compare an anthology series against a sitcom, drama, or variety show?

Even if one was just polling what is the greatest writing for a single tv episode of all time, what exactly is the criteria? Cultural impact? Long term influence? Re-watchability? Enjoyment?

It's the same issue that plagues the Sight and Sound critics polls of the greatest films of all time. Citizen Kane held the #1 spot for eons, but for so many different reasons. I can't imagine it was the most beloved film of all time, but its hard to argue how influential it was on film-making.

[7V3N]

Seinfeld > South Park.

I have yet to watch The Sopranos, but based on the things I've heard about it, it's probably even better than Breaking Bad(BB's biggest asset has always been the acting, which is even more fantastic than the writing).

Seinfeld is the best written comedy probably ever. It was also the first of its kind. It brought forth an entire new type of sitcoms. South Park is hilarious but it is not clever writing IMO. I don't see how anybody can argue that Seinfeld isn't one of the best comedies ever. To this day, reruns are shown all over and it is a show that clearly is immortal. Breaking Bad's writing has been great, but the writing gives the actors great opportunities to shoecase a range of emotions, and it has had outstanding acting throughout the series. I also haven't watched the Sopranos, but everyone (including actors and writers) talk about it being the ceiling any series can reach--if you hit Sopranos-quality, then you've done the absolute best that can be done.

Also, I think Deadwood is one of the best ever. So I am surprised at how low that is. All in all, everyone has different opinions and our situations in life affect our opinions of what we watch. The only way to trust anything like a "Top 100" list, is if (and even this is barely) it is compiled from averages of various people in the business--actors, writers, producers, etc.--and critics alike. But still, everyone has different tastes and biases.

[pleonasm]

I also haven't watched the Sopranos, but everyone (including actors and writers) talk about it being the ceiling any series can reach--if you hit Sopranos-quality, then you've done the absolute best that can be done.

You should check it out. Season 3's "Pine Barrens" or "Employee of the Month" are great entry points. You don't need to be familiar with the series to enjoy them. Movie like production values, stellar writing, and incredible performances. That series basically reset the standard for what could be considered great dramatic television.

And for those of you who wonder why I (well not just me) are so critical about some of the writing of Game of Thrones, watch Season 3's "Pine Barrens" and "Amour Fou" from the Sopranos back to back and tell me if GOT can even be considered in the same league as that? There is some good writing on GOT, but its never even come close to the sustained heights of that.

[Lord of Beyond the Wall]

That list was made by the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and as good as BB was in the first four season is not even close to the weakest episode of The Sopranos. On the other hand, for a show with only three seasons GoT is fairly hight considering that that list is base on the first two season of the show.

[Dendrophobic Ent]

I would argue the opposite regarding Breaking Bad. I think it is much more subtle. With the Game of Thrones show, most people are left with the same opinions of characters (though have different favorites), but with Breaking Bad people can endlessly discuss the depth to the characters. Breaking Bad is much more subtle where I think GoT is rather heavy-handed. There isn't much discussion in GoT on who is the good guy, people all agree Tyrion, Dany, Jon, etc. But in Breaking Bad everyone can defend a character with good evidence, but also cannot be right or wrong--much more like the ASOIAF books. Breaking Bad also has much more subtle yet strong symbolism and metaphors (the fly, the bear-eye, baldness, etc.) where as the depth of GoT symbolism is limited to 'angels on the shoulder'.

I love both shows, but if I didn't know the depth to characters in GoT from the books, I would not appreciate it to the level of Breaking Bad. So simply comparing show-to-show, I think Breaking Bad is much better. The writing is infinitely better, but GoT benefits from having GRRM's great world and characters, as well as some fantastic CGI moments (I'm looking at you Astapor!).

ETA: I should add that I have loved Cogman's episodes, and didn't look into him until I watched his commentary on his episode. I found that all the episodes he wrote were some of my favorites. He has great tie-ins and sticks pretty true to the source material. Cripples, Bastard, and Broken Things is still one of my all-time favorites.

I'll shut up about this after this post because I don't want to get on anyone's nerves or anything, but I disagree here. All of Breaking Bad's themes are incredibly heavy handed in my opinion, Like the stupid plane thing, or Grey Matters, or Gus's two faces. The themes are drummed into the audience .Also, there's always an authorial voice telling the audience how bad certain acts are. There's no real moral complexity, at least compared to shows like GoT or The Wire, where acts/motivations can be awful but aren't condemned and can be seen as beneficial. Breaking Bad feels like a polemic delivered by a schoolmaster. I admit that the two angels thing was awfully egregious, but you also have themes and symbols in GoT that are much more subtly done or at least deployed better, for example family, the burden of the past, the throne, ships, sigils etc.

I agree with you about the show being less complex than the books though, although I think that's more to do with the need to acquire and maintain viewers than any artistic failure.

Also, may I say that this forum is awesome. It's great that people can have a polite debate without it devolving to insults or childishness. This is the only forum of which I've been a member where this has been the case.

[Kittykatknits]

***Bryan Cogman also had a pretty skimpy TV writing resume prior to GOT. Now that Vanessa Taylor's been given the boot, the only writer on staff with any kind of substantial TV writing experience prior to GOT is...GRRM.

Wait, what? Was Vanessa Taylor actually fired? Not a loss if this happened but I hadn't heard it.

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

The Emmys have a history of not giving nominations to child actors, it's not a surprise.

As to this thread, I've avoided coming in here as I knew Dinklage was getting another nod while Fairley and NCW were snubbed. Truly disappointed but not surprised.

[SerStinger]

I thought based on her performance in episode 9, only Michelle Fairley deserved the prize.

[7V3N]

I'll shut up about this after this post because I don't want to get on anyone's nerves or anything, but I disagree here. All of Breaking Bad's themes are incredibly heavy handed in my opinion, Like the stupid plane thing, or Grey Matters, or Gus's two faces. The themes are drummed into the audience .Also, there's always an authorial voice telling the audience how bad certain acts are. There's no real moral complexity, at least compared to shows like GoT or The Wire, where acts/motivations can be awful but aren't condemned and can be seen as beneficial. Breaking Bad feels like a polemic delivered by a schoolmaster. I admit that the two angels thing was awfully egregious, but you also have themes and symbols in GoT that are much more subtly done or at least deployed better, for example family, the burden of the past, the throne, ships, sigils etc.

I agree with you about the show being less complex than the books though, although I think that's more to do with the need to acquire and maintain viewers than any artistic failure.

Also, may I say that this forum is awesome. It's great that people can have a polite debate without it devolving to insults or childishness. This is the only forum of which I've been a member where this has been the case.

I can respect your opinion on Breaking Bad. You are right that some are very heavy-handed, but there are so many that are subtle. Things like the paper towel dispenser, the painting, baldness, etc. Things that exist but are not focused on or explicitly pointed out.

But on your point about GoT, I disagree. I recently watched all of the seasons 1 and 2 commentary and it made me realize things happen simply because 1) Dave and Dan have their own strong biases, 2) Dave and Dan are actually pretty new fans of the series, and didn't do all of the reads and rereads that many fans have done, 3) Many scenes are inserted without thoughts of their consequences simply because "they'll make great scenes" (and in some cases they do, others they serve no real purpose), and other things. Mainly, these people creating the show do not discuss the story and characters in the context of the books enough to see the various things we see. This leads to Tyrion being too good, Cersei not being completely psycho, etc. There is little foreshadowing too, especially in the form of foreshadowing.

In the end, this show really just needs at least 12 episodes per season, maybe even 14. The amount of time that can be given to the characters is not enough, even with the backstory almost entirely cut. I'll be very surprised if we get stories like the Knight of the Laughing Tree, The Sign at the Crossroads Inn, or real depth to the free folk.

But I also know that the show and the books are separate. I view it as I do with the Walking Dead--the books (or comics) and the show are completely different and should be viewed as such. I enjoy the show for what it is, I just think it has more potential.

[Dendrophobic Ent]

I can respect your opinion on Breaking Bad. You are right that some are very heavy-handed, but there are so many that are subtle. Things like the paper towel dispenser, the painting, baldness, etc. Things that exist but are not focused on or explicitly pointed out.

But on your point about GoT, I disagree. I recently watched all of the seasons 1 and 2 commentary and it made me realize things happen simply because 1) Dave and Dan have their own strong biases, 2) Dave and Dan are actually pretty new fans of the series, and didn't do all of the reads and rereads that many fans have done, 3) Many scenes are inserted without thoughts of their consequences simply because "they'll make great scenes" (and in some cases they do, others they serve no real purpose), and other things. Mainly, these people creating the show do not discuss the story and characters in the context of the books enough to see the various things we see. This leads to Tyrion being too good, Cersei not being completely psycho, etc. There is little foreshadowing too, especially in the form of foreshadowing.

In the end, this show really just needs at least 12 episodes per season, maybe even 14. The amount of time that can be given to the characters is not enough, even with the backstory almost entirely cut. I'll be very surprised if we get stories like the Knight of the Laughing Tree, The Sign at the Crossroads Inn, or real depth to the free folk.

But I also know that the show and the books are separate. I view it as I do with the Walking Dead--the books (or comics) and the show are completely different and should be viewed as such. I enjoy the show for what it is, I just think it has more potential.

Fair enough. I haven't watched the commentary disks, so I'm uninformed on that aspect. It may be possible that I'm imposing thematic and character depths from the books onto the show.

Also, apologies for my insulting Breaking Bad. I love that show; it's just that I don't think it's the unimpeachable work of art others deem it to be

That's a brilliant point about the show runners not being particularly observant fans when compared to the actual fans lol. Like you said, certain characters have been given disservice, Tyrion especially. I'd also add Stannis to that list.

Still, it's pretty great in terms of moral complexity and stuff. Even whitewashed characters like Dany and Tyrion are shown to be wrong now and again.

[7V3N]

Fair enough. I haven't watched the commentary disks, so I'm uninformed on that aspect. It may be possible that I'm imposing thematic and character depths from the books onto the show.

Also, apologies for my insulting Breaking Bad. I love that show; it's just that I don't think it's the unimpeachable work of art others deem it.

That's a brilliant point about the show runners not being particularly observant fans when compared to the actual fans lol. Like you said, certain characters have been given disservice, Tyrion especially. I'd also add Stannis to that list.

Still, it's pretty great in terms of moral complexity and stuff. Even whitewashed characters like Dany and Tyrion are shown to be wrong now and again.

No need to apologize! We each have different opinions.

I agree with GoT there. Tyrion is a saint, Dany is a messiah, Stannis is a villain (and I have asked all my Unsullied friends to see if my judgment was correct)--they call him power-hungry, selfish, with completely subjective judgment--all of which I think contrast his book conterpart. Luckily, some characters have been portrayed excellently--Jaime, season 3 Brienne, Roose Bolton, Arya, Davos, Theon, Varys (except for that scene with Shae), Ned, Robert, etc.--and others have benefited from their changes--Tywin, Joffrey (minor, in-character changes), Bronn, etc.

In season one, the writers were afraid of writing the series, which is why there were less deviations and many lines came right from the books. After that, they got more confident and decided they could get away with more, which they did. Scenes that represented those from the books sometimes had very different dialogue, and many more added scenes and plots (Qarth!).

[Padraig]

Tyrion is a saint, Dany is a messiah, Stannis is a villain (and I have asked all my Unsullied friends to see if my judgment was correct)--they call him power-hungry, selfish, with completely subjective judgment--all of which I think contrast his book conterpart.

S4 will be a big season for Tyrion since he shouldn't get a chance to be saintlike for long. Dany had a great time in S3 but people seem to have quickly forgotten how inept she was in most of S2. It will be interesting to see the cracks begin to emerge in S4 (although, even in the books, things go very well for her in aSoS). And Stannis. Well, I don't really see how he is very different from the books to be honest.

[7V3N]

S4 will be a big season for Tyrion since he shouldn't get a chance to be saintlike for long. Dany had a great time in S3 but people seem to have quickly forgotten how inept she was in most of S2. It will be interesting to see the cracks begin to emerge in S4 (although, even in the books, things go very well for her in aSoS). And Stannis. Well, I don't really see how he is very different from the books to be honest.

As far as Stannis goes, he comes across as having lust and desire--things he has none of in the books. He is grim and his only actual desire is for the rules to be played fair. They also alter his relationship with Mel and Davos (more with Mel) in small ways that still have an impact. Davos keeps him grounded and represents Stannis who follows the rules and plays fair. Mel is his temptation--she offers an easier way to acquire the throne but at a price, including his integrity. In the show, Mel's temptation seems more sexual than anything and Stannis sides with her too easily. Rather than showing a back-and-forth, he immediately agrees with Mel and has regrets and goes to Davos. It seems very similar, but the differences in perceptions between readers and viewers is actually pretty drastic. As I said, my Unsullied friends find him evil, power-hungry, and without real morality--very much the opposite of the Stannis readers know.

[crazibouncer]

I agree with everyone that NCW should have totally been nominated over Peter, even though Peter is great, he did not do as much this season. I'm also happy that Emilia got a nomination and all the other nominations for the other categories.

[Padraig]

As I said, my Unsullied friends find him evil, power-hungry, and without real morality--very much the opposite of the Stannis readers know.

Fair enough. I can't divorce my knowledge of the books from the TV show, so I can't really judge their reaction. I only find it strange when bookreaders insist that Stannis is radically different. Sure,the sex thing is certainly made more of but we know Stannis had sex with Melisandre in the books also.

[7V3N]

Fair enough. I can't divorce my knowledge of the books from the TV show, so I can't really judge their reaction. I only find it strange when bookreaders insist that Stannis is radically different. Sure,the sex thing is certainly made more of but we know Stannis had sex with Melisandre in the books also.

I think the difference is the expression of lust and desire. From my understanding in the books, Stannis did it because he thought it would serve to magically bring him closer to sitting on the Iron Throne--something he believed was his by right, by the laws that all men of Westeros were supposed to follow. In the show, it seems Stannis gives in to sexual temptation--especially since Mel is expressed as a whore (with Davos she says something like "You want me. You want to see what's underneath my dress."). I think much of it is the problem of writing, not acting. Dillane has shown parts of Stannis (I particularly like his opening scene where he improvised holding his hand out for his wife as he walked away from the burning sept), but his dialogue often portrays him as just another pretender who lusts for power. Instead, I see Stannis as a man who doesn't want it, but has lived his whole life following these rules and suffering for others, so he believes that the rules must be followed and he should sit on the throne. If the rules are not continued to be followed, he would have to believe his whole life was a mistake, one that he should have redone and acted with greed like everyone else.

[Khal-a-bunga]

I can respect your opinion on Breaking Bad. You are right that some are very heavy-handed, but there are so many that are subtle. Things like the paper towel dispenser, the painting, baldness, etc. Things that exist but are not focused on or explicitly pointed out.

I love Breaking Bad, and it's a lot of things, but subtle is not one of them. The paper towel dispenser, the painting, and Walt shaving his head are all pretty much about as on-the-nose as you can get. There's nothing wrong with that, mind you, but anyone engaged with the show will pick up on the symbolism of these things very easily.