I just can't believe it.

http://tv.yahoo.com/feature/emmynominees06.html

Insane! Although awesome that the show FINALLY got recognised as a whole :) That's a cool thing because it is a great all-round effort. Plus they'll all have to go to the award show now and we should get some very pretty pictures of the whole cat.

Gutted that Hugh didn't get a nom - bad week for my fellow Englishmen - the lottery of penalites and Emmy noms. Never mind boys- form is temporary, class is permanent. Hugh's different class in my book but I don't watch any of these other shows or actors. All I can say is "Cry 'we was robbed!' for Hugh, England and Saint George". I bet Shakespeare didn't get any Ye Olde Golde awards either.

Sometimes it takes a while for individual actors on a series to start getting the attention they deserve. Here's hoping for next year!

And Benj? I loved this little quote of yours:

I love your icon Benji! The Beatles rock!

I can't believe Hugh didn't get nominated! If you ask me, he should have taken the place of the guy that played Nate on Six Feet Under. Oh well. Guess I'll have to root for Martin Sheen this year.

Wow. Boston Legal got a lot of nominations. GO HOUSE ON BEST DRAMA! W00t! :lol:

Cry havoc indeed.

The press seem as astonished as we are on the omission of Hugh Laurie. I have been following the stories around and commenting where possible. Here are just two of many:-


QUOTE
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/commentary/0,...66_3_0_,00.html

Then again, so did Drama Um, yeah, so there are these two actors named Edie Falco and James Gandolfini who dominate The Sopranos? They’re not on your list (Gandolfini deserved a nod just for the look he gave his wife as she started in on Adriana’s disappearance over breakfast). Yes, they nominated Michael Imperioli, but, boy, did they go broad with drug-craving, screenplay-writing Christopher this season. Golden Globe winner Hugh Laurie failed to be nominated for his brooding work on House (a series, like Scrubs, in which a single actor works with a lovely ensemble to set the tone of the show. Finally, boo for refusing kudos to The Shield, which like 24, had one of its best seasons yet. At the very least, Forest Whitaker should have gotten a nod for his twitchy, obsessed IAD detective (his rage upon realizing he was being spied on with his mentally unstable wife should have placed him in the running). On the positive side, a nod for entirely genuine Denis Leary as Rescue Me’s tortured firefighter is a nice bit of relief.



Post your response below.

Magdala- Thu, Jul 6, 2006 at 7:22 PM EDT

Failing to nominate Hugh Laurie and others who have given stellar performances indicates that the new system does not work. And those voting under this system watch very little television



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grant- Thu, Jul 6, 2006 at 7:21 PM EDT

24 all the way



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

dolph1n- Thu, Jul 6, 2006 at 7:21 PM EDT

While I was happy to see Denis Leary and Keifer Sutherland recognized in the Best Actor category ...

Where is Hugh Laurie for House? He is a phenom in the role!

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2006/07/t...y_nomina_4.html



James Gandolfini as Tony Soprano and Hugh Laurie as Dr. Gregory House are two of the powerhouse performances in TV history and the actors were at the top of their game this past season. Leaving them out is a bit like leaving Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron or Sandy Koufax out of baseball's All-Star Game at the height of their careers.

Failing to nominate Hugh Laurie and others who have given stellar performances indicates that the new system does not work. And those voting under this system watch very little television.

Posted by: Magdala | Jul 6, 2006 4:32:52 PM



It made me feel better anyway.

As I've said elsewhere, stunned silence doesn't quite cover it! But, I never put much stock in these awards. They're fun to watch if you have someone to root for but none of it changes my mind on what I watch or who I think is outstanding. But, unfortunately they do have an influence. Who is hot, who gets the free positive press. He who gets the most attention gets the viewers.

Now if the show sucks, they won't retain viewers but by then, the loss of viewers many be the death of other more worthy shows. I think the Emmys and many other awards shows need to rethink their approach as well as their impact. Take their resposibilities seriously. And I don't just say this because Hugh didn't get nominated. This has been going on for years, and keeping good shows on well past their "shelf life" and killing fresh, innovative, new shows thus keeping broadcast television in a stale state.

Next thought;

It would be nice for all involved in the show (House) to get that pat on the back for their hard work and as a show of appreciation for the quality show they bring to the screen week after week but, and this is why I love them and the show so much, they don't need any award to validate that. In the entertainment industry it's all about the numbers and they come through in the ratings.

I know Hugh had said last year, I think for both the Emmy nom and the GG nom and win, that it was nice and helped validate, in his mind, his choice to become an actor. But, and this is just my little mind game, I think that somehow that doubtfulness (is that a word?) has lead him to be the outstanding actor that he is. When you feel that constant need to prove yourself it pushes you to greater heights.

I don't think a ton of awards would ever erase that or cause Hugh t0 orest on his laurels but I do believe we will see an even higher level from him this season. Not because he has the "I'll show them" mentality or that he is pushing harder for an award but that he will think 'I have fallen short and need to pick it up'.

Final thought;

That being said, I am terribly confused and disappointed in the lack of a nomination at least. And as I have asked for many years, what is this all based on? Popularity? Random chance? Biggest a$$ kisser? I mean "Best Actor in a Drama" would suggest to me that the persons nominated and ulimately the winner is viewed as the best on televison for that season. And again, to me that would be the overall performance in the show, not one episode in a season.

I realize that this is an impossibility, no one could watch every episode of every show out there but I think the way things are submitted and what is submitted needs to be changed as well.

I have no clear idea what it would take to fix this process but the Emmys have been a joke for years and it may just be too late to rescue them.

Sorry to ramble on with short random thoughts but my brain is still a little numb! :blink:

And Benj... You got that right!! And my condolences on England loss :( You may now take up the cry of Clevelanders everywhere ... "Next time! :) "

That's very cool RT and pretty nrear the mark - I used to live in Cleveland (old county here that got disbanded or reorganised or summink) so I feel a deep affiliation :)

Not to flog a dead donkey but how does Geena Davis getting a nom work? When I was in the States last summer they were giving CiC massive wall to wall type publicity and it got cancelled? Geena Davis was the lead so that clearly doesn't look good on her but then she gets an individual nom? Que? She may have been awesome (I haven't seen the show) but what is that about? On that basis I'm now extra miffed because The Book Of Daniel should be well in the mix too?

Commander and Cheif was a horrible show. Period. Her acting was horrible, the entire show was horrible, I'm sorry if you liked it, but to someone who has never missed any episode of The West Wing, the show was a joke. I really don't see how she could have gotten the nomination and Hugh not. The Emmys is the bigest load of crap in my book for this...