Emmys 2010

[Abraham Smashington]

You can most certainly compare ACTING, doesn't matter if the shows are only somewhat similar in tone.

[Abraham Smashington]

Nothing Hamm has done in the first 3 season of Mad Men (yep, I've seen all 3 seasons) has come close to the shit that Cranston has done in Breaking Bad.

[Abraham Smashington]

Cranston's on a whole other level.

[Ed Hocken]

Well duh. Cranston is playing a decent guy who gets corrupted. Hamm is playing a guy who creates a lie for himself thinking that's what he needs and turns out it's not working.

People are generally more facinated about good turning to evil, rags to riches. It's a story as old as time itself. So of course, there will be more "range" as it were.

Both shows are amazing in my view. And I don't need some dumb statue to validate that. Especially, because how many emmy's does Tony Shaloub have?

[Abraham Smashington]

I don't care about the actual awards. I want to discuss why I can't compare two actors in two televisions shows that are both dramas.

[Ed Hocken]

Because the subject matter is different, the stories are completely different, and both shows work on different levels.

You can't compare a period piece drama to a black comedy crime story. The elements are completely different. The shows are amazing for different sets of reasons.

By your logic, I could go around saying that Sons of Anarchy is better than Breaking Bad since both are dramas and involve drugs. As you can see, that statement doesn't make any sense because the stories are completely different.

[Abraham Smashington]

I said ACTING. You can most certainly compare the acting even if the subject matter is different. It's my personal opinion that Breaking Bad is a better show, however it's harder to believe that Jon Hamm is a better actor than Bryan Cranston.

[Ed Hocken]

That's for fellow actors to decide and it doesn't need validation.

Hamm will probably get it because Mad Men is god to the critics.

[Anderson]

I said ACTING. You can most certainly compare the acting even if the subject matter is different. It's my personal opinion that Breaking Bad is a better show, however it's harder to believe that Jon Hamm is a better actor than Bryan Cranston.

So much wrong with this that I don't ever know where to begin.


Hamm's been solid from the start. It took Cranston 20 years and a lot of return trips to the theatrical stage to work out his kinks.

I like Cranston because he's finally getting his due and he worked his ass off of at it.


But, Hamm has created one of television's new legends. That's the bitch of this situation and why it makes it so hard to vote. These guys keep going neck and neck with the voting every year, so far Cranston has been the victor. I feel it's probably going to go Cranston again this year since Hendricks seems like the one who'll get the acting award for Mad Men.

Colfer and Lynch get it for Glee.

Short wins for Damages.

[Ed Hocken]

I admit, I have to agree with Ruckus.

*nonexplodinghead.gif*

[Martin]

Lemme guess. Another fucking year where Neil Patrick Harris is ignored while some lesser performance (like Piven's) wins the supporting actor.

HIMYM ain't perfect, but NHP elevates it so much.

And I guess I should watch Breaking Bad.

[Abraham Smashington]

NHP should win for comedy.

I still think Cranston's acting in BB is better than Hamm's in MM. But I'm fine with being completely wrong. I also find MM to be very, very, boring. Once again, I'm fine with being completely wrong.

[Ed Hocken]

Oh Martin, you have no idea.

[Master Shake]

The Emmys are horseshit. Apparently they hate FX series and just put Damages in every year as a token so they don't have to acknowledge the others, because they way they ignored The Shield after the first season and the way they're ignoring Sons of Anarchy (seriously, no nom for Katey Segal?) and Justified (Why do you hate the Goggins so, Emmys?) gives them zero credibility in my eyes. Breaking Bad needs to sweep.

[Ed Hocken]

You know also why the Emmy's suck balls?

Not one nomination to Married with Children.

j/k