2014 Emmys Predictions: The Comedy Nominees

Despite its status as one of the best television comedies of all time, many don't realize that Seinfeld has not been nominated for an Emmy since 1998.

Here are my predictions for the comedy nominations for the 2014 Primetime Emmy Awards. You can read my drama predictions here. As always, these are my predictions for who will be nominated, not necessarily who I hope will be.

Outstanding Comedy Series:

Because "nerds are dorky" jokes deserve to be rewarded year after year.

My Predictions: 
The Big Bang Theory
Girls
Louie
Modern Family
Orange is the New Black
Veep

Possibilities:

Brooklyn Nine Nine

Longshots:

Episodes
Parks and Recreation
Nurse Jackie

This category is is interesting, in that the race for nominations is not all that competitive, but the race for the award itself probably will be (more on that to come after nominations are announced). Modern Family has won this award four times in a row, and while that streak could end this year, it's still the most certain bet for a nomination. Then, we have  The Big Bang Theory, Girls, Louie, and Veep-- all of which were nominated last year, and which have not done anything to indicate they will lose that status.

Since the other nominee from last year-- 30 Rock-- is now off the air, that means that there is one spot up for grabs. This is all but a lock for Orange is the New Black. The Netflix series is, bafflingly, entered in the comedy categories instead of the drama ones. Actually, it's not that baffling. Given that Breaking Bad is going to sweep the drama categories, the promising Orange is the New Black would not be able to have all that much success there. But, the comedy categories are much more open-- most people think that Modern Family's reign will come to an end this year, and Orange is the New Black probably has the best chance to take the crown. It makes sense to enter it here...but I think it will hurt the series in the long run, at least Emmys-wise, as the series clearly is a drama, and might not be able to compete here long-term as voters struggle to continue classifying it as a comedy. But, that's neither here nor there for right now-- it's a lock for a nomination and a strong contender for the win.

The only other new series which might crack the list of nominations and unseat a longstanding nominee is Brooklyn Nine Nine. I'm a huge fan of the series and certainly think it deserves a nomination over some of my predictions (cough cough Big Bang Theory cough cough Girls) but, as a new series, it took a while to really get on its feet and I can't see it overcoming the huge Emmy-love that the other nominees have. Brooklyn Nine Nine is a bit of a wildcard, though, and could have a surprising Emmy showing. Its surprising Golden Globes domination certainly helped its chances, so it might have a shot after all.

There are also some series which were once nominated here, but which I see as unlikely to find themselves back in the running. The critically-acclaimed but largely unwatched Episodes always garners a little bit of buzz thanks to its devoted fan base, but just doesn't have the numbers to make it. Nurse Jackie, of my list of "longshots" probably has the best chance of scoring a nomination-- Merritt Wever's surprise win last year might show that the series is still in the Emmys' good graces-- but I fear the field is just too competitive, and with Orange is the New Black, the category already has a "secretly-not-a-comedy" entry on its roster. Lastly, there is my beloved Parks and Recreation, which in a just world would receive all the awards. Although is looked primed to be an Emmys favorite at one point, its failure to score key nominations the past few years has really placed it out of the running. If the Emmys gives any love to a Mike Schur series, it will be Brooklyn Nine Nine.

Outstanding Actor in a Comedy Series:

Sadly, Lincoln is not a real series and is, thus, ineligible.

My Predictions:
Don Cheadle, House of Lies
Louis C.K., Louie
Johnny Galecki, The Big Bang Theory
Matt LeBlanc, Episodes
Jim Parsons, The Big Bang theory 
Andy Samberg, Brooklyn Nine Nine

Possibilities:
John Goodman, Alpha House
Jonathan Groff, Looking
William H. Macy, Shameless

Longshots:
Michael J. Fox, The Michael J. Fox Show
Robin Williams, The Crazy Ones

This category is truly up in the air, and is rife for a lot of surprises. Of the nominees, there are really only three true locks: Don Cheadle, Louis C.K., and last year's winner Jim Parsons are all securely going to be nominated here. But, everything else is up in the air, so half of the field is still free. Two of last year's nominees-- Alec Baldwin and Jason Bateman-- do not have series in contention this year and therefore, those spots are open. The fourth nominee, Matt LeBlanc, is likely to get a nomination again, but his position is far more tenuous than his fellow nominees, due only to the fact that so few people watch Episodes. But, given how up in the air this category is, I think he's safe to get nominated again, almost by default.

But, that still leaves two spots open and they could really go to anyone. I think that, because of this, Johnny Galecki will enter the field again because the Emmys inexplicably loves The Big Bang Theory. Galecki is kind of the nominee of convenience-- he's been nominated once before, and really gets thrown in just when there are no other real options, which is the case here. But, of the other possibilities, he's the only other previous nominee here, so that does give him an edge.

Then there's one spot left. There are some big names entered here-- movie stars like John Goodman and Robin Williams, beloved television favorites like Michael J. Fox, and Broadway star Jonathan Groff. The fact that Fox and Williams' shows were canceled doesn't bode well for their chances, so I see them as longshots. Goodman has a chance, but Alpha House failed to make the splash some thought it would, so if he gets it, it's on name alone. Meanwhile, Looking doesn't seem to have any Emmy buzz whatsoever, so I don't really see Groff pulling a nomination here, but I've seen him mentioned a few times, so I thought I'd put him on the list as a possibility-- it's just a slight one. So, I don't see these particular big names really making a huge impression.

Instead, I think the nomination will go to either Andy Samberg for Brooklyn Nine Nine or William H. Macy for Shameless. While Shameless has been on the air for a few seasons, it has submitted as a drama for the past few years, but switched to submitting as a comedy this year since it wasn't having any luck. Macy has starpower, and people have responded well to his performance, so this move might pay off for him and score him a nomination-- I wouldn't be surprised at all if this happens. But, then again, the genre switch might piss some people off and work against Macy. That means...and I can't believe I'm saying this...my final nominee prediction is Samberg. I love Brooklyn Nine Nine, and Samberg is a lot of fun on it...but he's not really acting by any definition of the word. No one would watch this show and think he gives a tour de force performance, and I initially didn't really see him getting any awards consideration at all. But...here's the thing: he won the Golden Globe. That gives him a surprising air of credibility, and if Brooklyn Nine Nine can generate enough Emmys buzz, he's in the running here. Somehow.

Outstanding Actress in a Comedy Series:

Veep and the V.P.

My Predictions:

Lena Dunham, Girls

Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie

Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Veep
Melissa McCarthy, Mike and Molly
Amy Poehler, Parks and Recreation
Taylor Schilling, Orange is the New Black

Possibilities:

Zooey Deschanel, New Girl
Anna Faris, Mom

This category is a little bit more cut and dry-- of last year's six nominees, two are ineligible (Laura Dern and Tina Fey) but the other four are locks to repeat a nomination for this year. That means that Lena Dunham, Edie Falco, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, and Amy Poehler will definitely be nominated. Maybe This is Poehler's year to finally win? Please? She deserves it so much! Meanwhile, there are two spots open, and one will probably go to Taylor Schilling, who will ride the Orange is the New Black momentum to an Emmy nomination despite the fact that, while she does good work, her character is probably the least interesting on the show. Second least interesting. After Larry. Fuck Larry.

That means there's one spot that's open, and it will most likely go to a previous nominee who didn't get a nomination last year-- either Zooey Deschanel for New Girl or Melissa McCarthy for Mike and Molly. I give McCarthy the edge, as she actually won in the category before. If there is any upset, it will be for Anna Faris-- a new submission in this category for her show Mom. In any other category, I'd put Faris as a longshot, but when there are so few people with an actual shot of a nomination here, that only helps Faris' odds at an upset.

Outstanding Supporting Actor, Comedy:

I couldn't think of a funny caption. Something about penguins? Because they're in tuxes?

My Predictions:
Andre Braugher, Brooklyn Nine Nine
Ty Burrell, Modern Family

Adam Driver, Girls
Tony Hale, Veep

Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Modern Family

Eric Stonestreet, Modern Family

Possibilities:

Ed O’Neill, Modern Family

Longshots:
Michael J. Harney, Orange is the New Black
Neil Patrick Harris, How I Met Your Mother
Taran Killam, Saturday Night Live

In a perfect world:
Keegan-Michael Key & Jordan Peele, Key & Peele

Last year, Modern Family's utter domination in the supporting performance categories came to an end, with Tony Hale and Merritt Wever defeating the horde of Modern Family nominees. I think this will happen again this year-- but Modern Family is still a huge force when it comes to nominations. My guess is that, of the four adult males submitted in this category for Modern Family, it will score three nominations. Of the four, I think O'Neill (who, in the show's first year, was the only adult cast member to not be nominated) is the one who will be out of the running-- given that Ty Burrell is too beloved, and it sounds like Jesse Tyler Ferguson and previous winner Eric Stonestreet (who surprised many by failing to get a nomination last year) had some very strong episodes written for them this year. O'Neill definitely has a shot of making it in, but I think of the four, he'll be the odd man out.

If Modern Family takes three of the spots, that means there are three left. One will clearly go to last year's winner, Hale. And Adam Driver, who got a nomination last year, will probably get one again. I feel pretty strongly that Andre Braugher will also score a nomination this year. He was nominated year after year for his work on the show Men of a Certain Age, which nobody watched, and I think he will be once again awarded for his work on a much more high profile show. As with any new series, it's uncertain how it will do when the nominations are announced, but Braugher has a good shot here.

There are, however, a few wildcards. Some of Hale's fellow Veep castmembers could make a play here-- but none have any real buzz, so I didn't include anyone specific on this list. Orange is the New Black is set to do very well at the Emmys, and while its predominantly female cast has the best chance of faring well, if any male cast member has a shot at a nomination, it's veteran character actor Michael J. Harney (Pablo "Pornstache" Schrieber submitted himself in the Guest Performer category). Meanwhile, last year's sixth nominee was Bill Hader for Saturday Night Live, and it's possible (although not exactly likely) that another SNL cast member will take his place. If anyone does, it would probably be Killam-- his Jebidiah Atkinson character is pretty fantastic. Although, if any performers from a sketch comedy show deserve a nomination, it's the titular stars of Key & Peele, who both submitted themselves in the supporting category. What I wouldn't give to see Keegan-Michael Key and/or Jordan Peele pull off an upset nomination in this category! Hell, Peele deserves it if only for the Continental Breakfast sketch.

At one time, I would have also put Neil Patrick Harris down as a good bet for a nomination. His portrayal of Barney Stinson on How I Met Your Mother won him lots of nominations in the past, and although he hasn't managed to get one in the past few years, the fact that it was How I Met Your Mother's final season could help him with Emmys voters an see him return to the contenders circle. But, then How I Met Your Mother made one of the worst finales in television history and it lost any chance of gaining any real Emmys love at all, including for Harris. Fun Fact-- the finale episode of How I Met Your Mother is submitted in the Outstanding Writing category. So...someone is either delusional, or just submitted it as a joke.

Outstanding Supporting Actress, Comedy:

Poussey and Taystee watch an episode of Girls and they are not happy about it.

 
My Predictions:
Mayim Bialik, The Big Bang Theory
Julie Bowen, Modern Family
Danielle Brooks, Orange is the New Black
Kate Mulgrew, Orange is the New Black
Laura Prepon, Orange is the New Black
Sofia Vergara, Modern Family
Merritt Wever, Nurse Jackie

Possibilities:

Anna Chlumsky, Veep

Jane Lynch, Glee
Samira Wiley, Orange is the New Black

Longshots:

Margo Martindale, The Millers

Before you ask me why some of your favorites from Orange is the New Black are not here, relax. Many of the cast members-- including Uzo Aduba, Laverne Cox, Lea DeLaria, Natasha Lyonne, and Taryn Manning, submitted themselves in the guest performer category, where they all have a great shot at a nomination-- especially Aduba and Cox. Sadly, and a little perplexingly, Michelle Hurst did not submit herself for any awards consideration, which I think is a shame, considering what wonderful work she does as Miss Claudette. But, to be fair, she doesn't give anything even resembling a comedic performance, so maybe if this show had been submitted in the drama categories where it belongs, she would have been a presence here.

But, even with these performers in the guest performer categories, this category is crowded with Orange is the New Black nominees-- with four actresses having submitted themselves. I think many of them have a good shot...but they face an already really crowded category. It seems impossible to think that Orange is the New Black won't do well here, but which returning nominees will they knock out to earn a place at the table? Surely not last year's winner and expert speech-giver Merritt Wever, who probably won't win again, but is assured a nomination. And surely not Julie Bowen or Sofia Vergara, who will continue to ride the Modern Family nomination train. Mayim Bialik also seems to have a nomination pretty secured down. That leaves only two spots left for the four Orange is the New Black submissions to battle for against last year's nominees Anna Chlumsky and Jane Lynch. I think-- and I cannot say this with confidence-- that Chlumsky and Lynch are going to be left out of the running this year. As loved as Lynch is, Glee no longer has any other Emmys presence and Lynch might no longer be able to show up in such a competitive category. Chlumsky, meanwhile, does great work on Veep, but is not the standout star like her co-stars Dreyfus and Hale, so she might simply be outvoted here and left without a nomination.

That leaves two spots for Orange is the New Black, and I'm going to take a HUGE risk when it comes to Emmys predictions and say that this year, there will be seven nominees. This doesn't happen a lot, although it definitely can happen (and happened in this category last year, in fact). The way the Emmys nominations work are that voters fill out ballots with who they'd like to be nominated. Typically, only the top six vote-getters win, but if more than six people score a certain percentage of votes, then a seventh nominee will be added. Given how competitive this category is, I think that's what will happen, so I'm listing seven nominees, allowing me to predict three from Orange is the New Black. I've chosen Danielle Brooks, Kate Mulgrew, and Laura Prepon as my nominees. Mulgrew and Prepon are the more recognizable faces to Emmys voters, and Brooks' outlandish performance as Taystee could earn her lots of votes over Samira Wiley's slightly more subdued performance as Taystee's cohort Poussey. But, as I said at the beginning, these are my predictions for what I think will happen, not was I want to happen. In an ideal world, Taystee and Poussey will both be nominated. And both win. And get a spinoff where they travel the world and mock white people.

The only other person I see being in consideration here is Margo Martindale for The Millers. Martindale is considered by many to be one of the best actresses on television right now, and while I don't think The Millers is really showcasing her at her best, she's one of those names that just attracts Emmy voters. In another year, it would be enough to assure her a nomination, but given how competitive this category already is, I don't see it happening this year.


And, that's it! Those are my thoughts. We still have another month before the nominees are announced, and we'll see how accurate my predictions are. Please discuss in the comments-- I'd love to know your thoughts. Who will get a nomination? Who deserves one but won't get it? Let me know!

2014 Emmy Predictions: The Drama Nominees

Four for you, Glen Coco! You go, Glen Coco! Aaaaaand none for Dexter Morgan.

As much as I love the Oscars, the Emmys are perhaps my favorite awards ceremony out of all of the top awards in different artistic media. What makes them so fascinating is that, unlike the Oscars, it's not a completely new batch of nominees from year to year. This means that as a show remains on the air, you get to see new trends in how the Emmy voters view different shows. For example, a show like Weeds was an Emmys darling at the start of its run, before being completely shut out during its later seasons. I have a feeling that this has happened to another Showtime series-- Dexter, which used to be a consistent Emmy nominee, but failed to score long-held nominations last year and had what most considered to be an abysmal final season this past year. Other shows, meanwhile, grow in the Emmys' estimation. The Big Bang Theory was completely ignored when it first aired, but has-- for better or for worse (in my opinion, worse)-- since become a considerable Emmy threat. Last year, there was a lot of buzz for the acclaimed series The Americans, and it got almost completely shut out. Does it have a chance to break into the field this year? And then there's the question of how tried-and-true series which have been on the air for years stack up to newer seasons. Look no further than the Best Drama category this year, where most agree it will be a race between the last season of Breaking Bad and the first season of True Detective. It adds an extra element to the predictions game-- instead of looking at other awards ceremonies to make your predictions, you actually get to look at the Emmys themselves.

As always, this is not necessarily who I want to be the nominees-- it is simply who I think they will be. And I'm making these predictions a full month in advance so things could definitely change as the predictions near. But, for now, here are my predictions for the nominees in the major categories. Let's start with the drama categories.

Outstanding Drama Series:

Malcolm in the Middle had one of the weirdest finales ever.

My Predictions: 
Breaking Bad
Downton Abbey
Game of Thrones
House of Cards
Mad Men
True Detective

Possibilities: 
The Good Wife
Homeland
Masters of Sex

Longshots:
The Americans
Boardwalk Empire

I already mentioned that this category will probably come down to a race between the last season of Breaking Bad and the first season of True Detective. I don't see how Breaking Bad won't come out on top, but regardless, both are shoo-ins for a nomination at least. Then, we have longtime Emmy darling Mad Men. While it was once the odds-on favorite to win this category every year, it has not won in the past two years, and will struggle to win again. Still, it's a pretty safe bet for a nomination. So is HBO epic Game of Thrones-- which was seen as a long shot for a nomination in its first year, but has proven itself as a consistent Emmy favorite. Netflix's House of Cards is also a lock.

This leaves one spot left, with a lot of shows competing for it. Downton Abbey and Homeland have both been nominated the past two years (with Homeland winning once) but have experienced diminishing critical returns with each season. This opens up the field for a new show to take this last spot. A good bet would be Masters of Sex, which has gotten a lot of attention but remains a bit of a wildcard given the competitiveness of the Drama categories. If any series is going to be crack this category from the previous nominees, it will be The Good Wife-- a previous nominee itself, which has not been nominated in this category for the past two years. But this last season was hailed as one of the series' best-- if it's going to get back into the Emmys' graces, this would have been the season to do it. Something tells me, though, that Downton Abbey will be nominated again after all. While a lot of people are not with me on this prediction, Downton Abbey  has been shown a disproportionate amount of Emmy love in each of its seasons. The Emmys LOVE this show, and it is hard for me to imagine it not being at play here.

This means that Boardwalk Empire-- another previous nominee in this category, which was once considered a favorite to win the award back in 2011-- is pretty much out completely. I don't see good odds for The Americans either, despite its high acclaim. It didn't manage to impress Emmy voters last year, and with True Detective at play, I think that the category has only gotten more competitive.

Outstanding Actor in a Drama Series:

But, like, actually, how the hell did Matthew McConaughey become one of the most acclaimed actors of our generation? How did this happen? When did this happen?

My Predictions:

Bryan Cranston, Breaking Bad

Jeff Daniels, The Newsroom
Jon Hamm, Mad Men

Matthew McConaughey, True Detective

Kevin Spacey, House of Cards

Michael Sheen, Masters of Sex

Possibilities:

Hugh Bonneville, Downton Abbey

Steve Buscemi, Boardwalk Empire
Woody Harrelson, True Detective
Damian Lewis, Homeland

James Spader, The Blacklist

Longshots:

Mads Mikkelsen, Hannibal

Matthew Rhys, The Americans
Liev Schrieber, Ray Donovan

Another really tough category here. Bryan Cranston will definitely be nominated for his portrayal of Walter White in Breaking Bad's final season. And he will win. He has to win. He's been snubbed now for two years in a row (I'm STILL reeling from Jeff Daniels' perplexing surprise win in this category last year) and this year he will reclaim the award that is rightfully his. The only one who could possibly unseat him is Matthew McConaughey for True Detective, riding in on a wave of Oscar momentum. Many think Daniels will be left out this year, as more and more become disillusioned with both his performance and The Newsroom as a whole. But, as much as a I understand why he might fail to score a nomination here, he wasn't just nominated last year, he WON THE WHOLE THING. To not get nominated the next year would be a huge snub, and he clearly has a lot of fans who will vote for him blindly, so I do think he's a safe bet here. Another safe bet is Kevin Spacey, who portrays the character of evil Southern Kevin Spacey on House of Cards. I also think that Jon Hamm-- the perpetual bridesmaid of the Emmys-- will be nominated for his work on Mad Men. I call him a bridesmaid because this would be his 7th nomination in this category and he STILL has not won, but also because he's in the movie Bridesmaids.

Again, this leaves one spot open, with four people likely competing for it (and any of those four could knock out Hamm, or even Daniels). Those four are Damian Lewis, James Spader, Woody Harrelson, and Michael Sheen. Lewis is a previous winner in this category and of these four is the only nominee from last year, plus his character was killed off this season (um...spoilers. Sorry) which tends to help score a nomination. But, the poorer reviews of this season of Homeland imply that the show is not as much of a force to be reckoned with, and I see this as an indication that Lewis will be knocked out in favor of a bigger, newer name. Spader is certainly not completely new to the Emmys-- he has won several in years past-- so his Emmy darling status makes him a strong possibility for a nomination here. The only problem is that The Blacklist, while popular, really is not all that good. And while even the show's harshest critics agree that Spader is really good in it, the show's overall negative reaction will hurt Spader's chances in such a loaded category. A lot of people are predicting that McConaughey's co-star Harrelson will be the one to grab the nomination, and there's a good chance of this. But, given that McConaughey's name is the one being thrown around much more consistently, I think that Harrelson is going to end up playing second fiddle to his Oscar-winning co-star. This leaves one major contender for the sixth nomination: Michael Sheen for Masters of Sex. The acclaimed show might make a huge splash on Emmys night and garner multiple nominations, or it might end up with a disappointing premiere Emmys showing (a la The Americans last year). If the latter is the case, then I think Sheen is the show's best chance at a major nomination.

Regardless, previous nominees like Steve Buscemi and Hugh Bonneville are looking more and more like longshots as their shows have lost favor and bigger names have thrown their hat into the ring. It also means that Matthew Rhys and Mads Mikkelsen-- who both gained a bit of buzz last year and still have some this year-- are probably going to fail to be contenders for the second time. Of my longshots, the one with the best possibility of pulling an upset is Liev Schrieber for Ray Donovan, but he's in the same position as Spader, and between the two, Spader has the better shot.

Outstanding Actress in a Drama Series:

I haven't seen Scandal, and don't know much about it, but it sounds as if it's The West Wing but everyone is sleeping together. Accurate?

My Predictions:
Claire Danes, Homeland

Michelle Dockery, Downton Abbey
Julianna Margulies, The Good Wife
Elisabeth Moss, Mad Men

Kerry Washington, Scandal

Robin Wright, House of Cards

Possibilities:

Connie Britton, Nashville

Lizzy Caplan, Masters of Sex

Vera Farmiga, Bates Motel

Tatiana Maslany, Orphan Black

Elizabeth McGovern, Downton Abbey
Keri Russell, The Americans

There are four pretty certain locks here: Claire Danes, Elisabeth Moss, Kerry Washington, and Robin Wright. All were nominated last year and have a strong chance of getting nominated again (with many thinking that Washington will disrupt Danes' two-year winning streak). This means there are two spots left. Last year, due to the competitive nature of the category, there were actually seven nominees (the reason for this is complicated and might be the subject of another post-- if people are interested in the voting technicalities, let me know in the comments and I'll run through them). The other three nominees from last year-- Michelle Dockery, Connie Britton, and Vera Farmiga-- all have a chance of getting nominated again, and it's likely that at least one of them will, but it's highly unlikely, I think, that two of the three will gain nominations again. Of the three, I think Britton has the worst chance of repeating a nomination. Now that it's in its second season, Nashville has lost a lot of buzz, and Britton has with it. I think Dockery has the best chance of the three, given the aforementioned crush the Emmys has on Downton Abbey. If Dockery does grab the fifth nomination, that leaves one extra spot, which I think will be taken by a nominee we didn't see last year. Julianna Margulies has a great shot at this-- a previous winner in this category, Margulies has the benefit of a really strong season which could catapult her back into the running. But she faces some tough competition. Elizabeth McGovern has been nominated for her work on Downton Abbey, and is submitting herself in the leading actress category for the first time this year. Tatiana Maslany's work on Orphan Black is widely considered some of the best on television, and her exclusion last year was considered a major snub. Lizzy Caplan has gotten great reviews for her work on the new series Masters of Sex, and has a shot here. Lastly, many still hold out hope that the Emmys will recognize The Americans this year and are throwing Keri Russell's name around. This category is really up in the air and could be full of surprises when the nominations are announced in July.

Outstanding Supporting Actor, Drama:

Pictured: The most and the least bald male cast members of Breaking Bad

My Predictions:

Jim Carter, Downton Abbey

Josh Charles, The Good Wife
Peter Dinklage, Game of Thrones
Dean Norris, Breaking Bad
Mandy Patinkin, Homeland

Aaron Paul, Breaking Bad

Possibilities:

Michael B. Jordan, Boardwalk Empire

Jeff Perry, Scandal                             

Peter Sarsgaard, The Killing

John Slattery, Mad Men
Jon Voight, Ray Donovan
Jeffrey Wright, Boardwalk Empire

For this award to go to Aaron Paul for his performance as a sad puppy dog, he first has to be nominated, and he will be. The next spot in this category will go to Peter Dinklage, who continues to be submitted in the supporting category despite everyone's belief that the show is really about him. Unlike the other categories, Dinklage and Paul are the only two real locks, so this category is a little bit more undecided, but  if there is a third sure bet, it's for Mandy Patinkin in Homeland.

This leaves four spots wide open. While his nomination is not as assured as it has been in previous years, I think Jim Carter is a pretty safe choice to be the fourth nominee. The Breaking Bad writers basically wrote the season in such a way that it would assure Dean Norris a nomination, so he will likely join the ranks of Giancarlo Esposito and Jonathan Banks as antagonists-to-Walter-White-who-get-nominated-once-after-their-characters-are-killed.

This leaves one more spot open-- one that had been filled by last year's winner Bobby Cannavale, who is not eligible this year. It's possible that this free spot will be filled by another actor from the star-studded Boardwalk Empire cast-- most likely Michael B. Jordan or Jeffrey Wright-- but I think it will more likely go to a previous nominee, one who just missed out on making it last time. That would mean either Josh Charles for The Good Wife or John Slattery for Mad Men, and as much as I love Slattery, I think Charles has the better shot.

The third option is that the free spot will go to someone completely new. The best chance of this is Jon Voight, who won the Golden Globe this year and has received several nominations from other awards. In fact, he's probably the safest bet to gain a nomination, but I put him down as just a possibility because...I just really don't see Ray Donovan doing all that well. It's not that people think it's the worst show...it's just that it really doesn't have the substance to be a true Emmys contender. The smart money is on Voight, but I'm taking a risk and leaving him off of my list of nominees. Another possible newcomer to the category is Jeff Perry for Scandal, whose nomination could show a surge in Emmy attention towards the show.

Lastly, there's Peter Sarsgaard for The Killing. You have no idea how much I want this to happen. I have already spoken about how I feel this show is criminally underrated. And I think if the show has any shot at all of getting Emmys love for its exceptional third season, it's on Sarsgaard. He's a recognizable name, and he gave an INCREDIBLE performance. He certainly deserves it, and there has been a tiny bit of buzz surrounding him. Not much, but perhaps it will be enough for him to score a surprise nomination.

Supporting Actress: Drama:

Maggie Smith in the film Gosford Park, but you totally thought it was from Downton Abbey, didn't you?

My Predictions:
Morena Baccarin, Homeland
Christine Baranski, The Good Wife
Anna Gunn, Breaking Bad

Christina Hendricks, Mad Men

Michelle Monaghan, True Detective

Maggie Smith, Downton Abbey

Possibilities:
Emilia Clarke, Game of Thrones

Joanne Froggatt, Downton Abbey
Lena Headey, Game of Thrones

Archie Panjabi, The Good Wife

Longshots:
Betsy Brandt, Breaking Bad

This category has the potential to be pretty up in the air. At one point, I would have put previous winner Archie Panjabi as a lock for a nomination-- but after she failed to score one last year, she might be out of luck. The supporting categories tend to be rife for upsets, so they become difficult to really predict. But, that means that when making predictions, the previous year's nominees become your best bet. And, sure enough, I think that all of last year's nominees have a chance to score a nomination again this year. But, there's a twist in the form of newcomer Michelle Monaghan, who seems like she has a great chance of winning for her work on True Detective. If Monaghan is in, though, it means that one of last year's nominees is going to be out, and I think the most likely is Emilia Clarke. That means, my predictions are Monaghan, plus last year's nominees Morena Baccarin, Christine Baranski, Anna Gunn, Christine Hendricks, and Maggie Smith.

If someone else breaks into the nominees (possibly unseating Baccarin? I don't know) then the best bet would be either Panjabi or Downton Abbey's Joanne Froggatt, who might join her co-star Smith. There has also been a little bit of buzz for Lena Headey to take Clarke's nomination as the representative for Game of Thrones.

The only wildcard here is Betsy Brandt for Breaking Bad. I honestly think that Brandt could have had a shot, but the writers didn't give Marie a specific standout episode like they did with, say, her husband Hank. Before the season aired, I thought that Brandt would be a surprise contender here, but after the season ended, I thought this wasn't as likely. Still, Brandt is getting a little bit of buzz, and if the Emmys decide to just shower Breaking Bad with all of the awards then Brandt could pull an upset and walk away with a nomination.

And, those are my thoughts on the drama nominees. Please discuss in the comments-- do you think my predictions are correct, or way off? Who deserves a nomination but won't get one? Let me know, and be sure to check out my predictions for the comedy categories.

Rating the Underrated: Musicals Based on Movies

I have long been a champion of Broadway. As off-Broadway, off-off-Broadway, and regional theater continue to grow in acclaim, many people have claimed that Broadway is becoming irrelevant. The problem with this thinking is that Broadway is not meant to be in competition with regional theater-- the ideal is for both to be impressive and thriving-- not for one to be better than the other. And while Broadway is certainly struggling, it's never going anywhere. As long as people are making theater, Broadway will be around and will be at the forefront of the American theater scene.

That's not to say that there are not flaws with Broadway. There are so many flaws. Works by female playwrights are still largely unproduced even as the number of prominent female playwright grows nationwide, there is still an emphasis on commercialization, there is a lack of accessibility as student discounts seem to disappear and ticket prices rise to all-time highs, and many more problems which would be more than worthy of a discussion. But I want to address one of the most common complaints that I hear about Broadway-- one which I've heard mentioned far more often than the far more valid ones I listed above. And, frankly, I've never understood why it's so problematic for so many people: the complaint that all Broadway shows are based on movies.

Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick in The Producers: which won the most Tony awards in Broadway history and also happens to be based on a movie.

The idea behind the complaint is that it seems like every show coming to Broadway is based on a movie-- which generally leads to the follow-up question of "aren't there any original ideas out there?" I can definitely understand, in theory, where people are coming from. The theater community prides itself on its creativity, and so the idea that there are previously told stories taking up space on Broadway marquis can be troubling. Especially when those stories are taken from a medium like film, which has not been around for as long as theater. I think that this complaint comes from a certain sense of superiority-- the idea that theater is supposed to be more sophisticated than film. And that's a problem. Theater and film are two different art forms-- neither is better or worse. I think it would be fair to say that film borrows from theater just as much as theater borrows from film. Since 2000, six of the winners of the Tony Award for Best Play have been made into films. Film, in fact, celebrates the act of adaptation. Since 2000, nine of the winners for Best Picture have had screenplays adapted from other works as opposed to being original stories. Yet no one is complaining that film as an art form is lacking in originality. Just because a story is pre-existing doesn't mean that there can't be creativity. In his entire career as a playwright, William Shakespeare only wrote one original story (The Tempest) and the rest were all adaptations. The truth is that there are plenty of beloved musicals out there which are drawn from films. While people may complain about this trend when discussing, say, Mary Poppins, few people are bringing it up when discussing better-accepted best musical winners such as The Lion King, The Producers, or Once. In fact, the four nominees for Best Musical last year were all inspired by films: Bring It On, A Christmas Story, Matilda, and the winner, Kinky Boots.

A scene from the dark and delightful Matilda the Musical

Of those nominees, I think that Bring It On is the most interesting case, and the one which best exemplifies the thesis of this post. I will admit that when I went to see Bring It On, I didn't expect it to be that good. I thought it would be fun, and I was sure it would have some great choreography, but I didn't expect it to be great theater. The reason? Well, because it was inspired on the film Bring It On. But, in reality, there was a lot to suggest that it would be good. It was written in part by Tom Kitt, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Jeff Whitty, who helped write Next to Normal, In the Heights, and Avenue Q respectively-- three of the most innovative shows to run on Broadway in recent years. With a pedigree like that, why shouldn't this be a really solid show? And, it was. I enjoyed Kinky Boots, and absolutely loved Matilda, but when it came down to it, Bring It On was my favorite new musical of that year. It featured a great script and score (although I do like Matilda's score more) and was simply an outstanding production. Rousing, inspiring, and with some really great messages hidden in there for good measure (the supporting character of La Cienega might have been one of the best and most respectful representations of a transgender character I've seen written for the stage). On Tony night, Bring It On was not a real contender to win the award for Best Musical. And many people were scoffing at the fact that it was nominated at all. But I can bet that these people never saw the show at all-- they dismissed it simply because it was a film adaptation (as a sidenote, the musical had very little to do with the film Bring It On-- while both had to do with cheerleaders, they had different plots and a completely different set of characters).

The diverse and incredibly hardworking cast of Bring it On performs on of the show's many showstopping numbers.

The first show which I think fell "victim" to this trend is Shrek the Musical in 2008. That's the first  time I specifically recall people being angry at a show that was adapted from a film. People were livid-- "Really, they're making a musical based on Shrek now?" I maintain that if Shrek the Musical had been released just a couple of years earlier, it would have been a huge hit-- but at that point, people were simply tired of this trend and wouldn't see it out of principle. But, like Bring it On, Shrek had a lot going for it. The music was by prolific composer Jeanine Tesori, with book and lyrics by beloved playwright David Lindsay-Abaire. Plus, it starred Broadway stars Brian d'Arcy James, Sutton Foster, and Christopher Sieber. Unfortunately, nobody saw it, and it closed all too soon. While it wasn't a perfect show, it had some absolutely clever moments, and some great songs (the act one finale "Who I'd Be" was a standout, for me). Perhaps most notably, the show featured some absolutely brilliant and clever staging in regards to the villain: Lord Farquad. In the film, a recurring joke was Farquad's diminutive height and the stage production took full advantage of this. Sieber performed the role almost entirely on his knees, in a special costume that made him look much shorter than he is. It was a gimmick, but an absolutely brilliant one-- and one of the best performances I've ever seen on Broadway. That he lost the Tony to Gregory Jbara in Billy Elliot was, frankly, criminal (Jbara is a great actor, but his role in that show simply didn't compare to what Sieber did). Check out this performance from the Tonys and tell me that this show doesn't look like it was fantastic. Yet, again, this musical suffered because of some stigma against adaptations from movies. And-- as beloved as the film is-- the fact that it's a kids movie didn't help its chances.

As Tony host Neil Patrick Harris sang, "Chris Sieber, please, performing on your knees? That only gets you Golden Globes."

I think the same stigma is being applied towards the Broadway musical Rocky. When it was announced that Rocky was coming to Broadway, there was a similar uproar of disbelief. It was thought that Broadway was really scraping the bottom of the barrel to be making a musical out of Rocky. But...why? What makes Rocky so unsuitable for being a stage musical? It's certainly a rousing story, and offers the chance for really creative choreography. But, more than anything, Rocky is a film which already incorporates music into it really well. It has one of the best scores in the history of film-- why shouldn't it be a musical? I have not yet seen the show-- although I already have tickets to see it soon-- so I can't speak firsthand, but everyone who I've spoken to has said they were surprised at how great it was. And coming from director Alex Timbers-- behind some of the most original Broadway shows of recent years, like Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson and Peter and the Starcatcher-- I have no doubts it will be an underrated gem. While it didn't get a nomination for Best Musical at the Tonys, it has been recognized by most other awards shows. Yet, it's struggling financially, and I have no doubts that this is due in part to those who have written it off without seeing it. If any such person is reading this, give the show a chance.

Andy Karl as the titular character in Rocky the Musical

My point is that just because a lot of Broadway musicals are based on films doesn't mean that Broadway, and certainly not the theater scene at large, is lacking in creativity or originality. There are still original stories being shown on stage every day, and the stories that have already been told are still creative in their own right. There are many criticisms one could throw at Broadway-- this particular one is incredibly misguided.

But despite everything I've just said, I'm really dreading the upcoming stage musical of School of Rock. This is a film which I have said for YEARS would translate really well to the stage. And I stand by that. But, who's decided to take it upon themselves to bring this vision to life? Andrew Lloyd Webber. Andrew. Lloyd. Webber. This is the worst news I've ever heard. He must be stopped.

Math is a wonderful thing. Yes, math is a really cool thing.

Putting the Actor Back in Child Actor

When I was five, I decided I wanted to be an actor. Although my parents had both worked in show business in the past-- and my mother still does-- this was not their idea. In fact, after I told them this was what I wanted to do, they made sure that I knew what I was getting into. They didn't try to talk me out of it, but they made sure I had a realistic expectation for what being an actor would entail. As my career went off, it became clear that I had some level of talent. While I wasn't a breakout star (although I have many tales of big projects that I was almost cast in-- there is a tragic tale of how I was very nearly the voice of Ash in Pokemon), I had my fair share of success and accumulated an impressive resume of strong acting credits from my childhood. I was lucky enough to have the chance to work with some incredible artists and companies, and would not trade in my acting experience for anything. As I now have made the transition into being an adult actor, I feel that my work as a child actor was the very best education I could have received.

Me in the film Dogville-- the largest role of my young career by far.

Child actors face an unfortunate stigma in the media. When someone like Lindsay Lohan or Amanda Bynes goes to rehab, or Mary-Kate Olsen is diagnosed with anorexia, the media is quick to jump on their history as child actors as the reason for their troubles. Prolific child actress Mara Wilson of Matilda and Mrs. Doubtfire fame, wrote an article for cracked.com entitled "7 Reasons Child Stars Go Crazy," where she goes through the reasons that a child star might, as she puts it, "go crazy."

She also establishes that she's no longer an actress herself (although she lends her talent superbly to the  incredible podcast "Welcome to Night Vale," where she voices the character of The Faceless Old Woman Who Secretly Lives in Your House.") It's a well-written article, and Wilson makes some great points. And, to be fair, her acting as a kid was in much more of a spotlight than mine. But I still had some problems with the article. Wilson is no longer an actress-- and that's the right choice for her-- but I feel she errs in implying that it is the right choice for everybody. And while I have some problems with the article, I take more issue with the comments themselves-- which further this notion that all child stars are disasters waiting to happen.

But, this is a problem with the media more than child actors themselves. Every time a child actor gets into trouble, it's reported on because it's great news. The news doesn't do reports on the child actors who are doing really well. And I'm not talking about actors like Mara Wilson who left the business already. There are tons of actors who are in the business still who have successful careers even though they acted as children. Here's a few I can name off the top of my head: Christian Bale, Jason Bateman, Jeff Bridges, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jodie Foster, Ryan Gosling, Seth Green, Neil Patrick Harris, Ethan Hawke, Jonah Hill, Ron Howard, Scarlett Johansson, Anna Kendrick, Jennifer Lawrence, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Anna Paquin, Natalie Portman, Elizabeth Taylor, Kenan Thompson, Kate Winslet, and Elijah Wood. Not to mention the kids from the Harry Potter films-- Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson in particular have taken on some really interesting projects and have been doing consistently great work to establish themselves as strong actors outside of their Potteresque identities. If these names are any indication, it should show how the life of a child actor is not a definite path towards doom and gloom.

But the false notion that child actors will all inevitably become drug addicts is not the only misconception that child actors face--I wasn't even aware of this misconception until later in my career. Instead, the biggest problem that child actors face is the fact that they're often not taken seriously. While actors might not always get along, the rehearsal process is generally a place where everyone is treated with respect. Now, I was lucky in that most of the people that I worked with were incredibly kind and generous, and many treated me with the same level of respect that they would treat any actor. But there were also many times that I found myself treated as less-than. Rather than give me benefit of the doubt, it was automatically assumed that I would not be as talented as the others in the room. Even though I auditioned for a part like everyone else, even though I was a card-bearing member of the acting union, the word "child" was more important than the word "actor." Once, I was in a play where I played a character with Asperger's Syndrome whose mother passes on early in the play. It was a difficult role, and the main character, and it is to date one of the most difficult roles I've ever had to play. At the end of the run, one of the actors confided in me that he had almost not accepted the role because he didn't think a child actor could have pulled the role off, but I stopped him from dropping out of the play after the first read-through, after it became clear that I wasn't just a random kid they had grabbed off the street. But while this actor's attitude towards me changed, not everyone's does. While most have treated me as a colleague, some of my thespian peers could never seem to get over my youth and could not take me seriously. They felt the need to hold my hand despite me consistently proving that I was up to the task as much as everyone else involved (especially impressive considering that I also had to do math homework on breaks).

This is not something that I am imagining-- it is apparent when we consider how younger actors are treated on a larger scale. The best example, for me, is the actor Suraj Sharma from Ang Lee's film Life of Pi. This was Sharma's first film role, and he does a remarkable job with it, delivering an emotional and nuanced performance. This is especially remarkable considering that he basically has to carry the film himself-- most scenes are just him and a CGI tiger. Since the tiger was added in digitally, Sharma essentially has to give a one-person performance, as his scene partner was not present and he had nothing to react to. It's a remarkable feat. And while his performance was critically acclaimed, Sharma received little to no awards consideration. The film was certainly well-received by multiple awards ceremonies-- it won four Oscars out of eleven nominations, but its star was not discussed at all. To clarify, I'm not confused as to why he wasn't nominated-- no one said it was easy to get an Oscar nomination-- I'm just surprised that he was not part of the discussion at all. There was no buzz surrounding this young performer. At no point did anyone consider him a contender for a nomination. Robert Redford's one-man performance in All is Lost the next year might not have earned him a nomination either, but at least he was buzzed about. Sharma was not given that same level of respect, despite an equally challenging performance in an acclaimed film. Certainly there are other factors at play here-- the fact that Sharma is Indian certainly could be a factor as to why he was so ignored-- but I think it would be naive to think that his age did not also come into play.

The same year that Sharma would have been eligible, another young actor did receive attention from the academy, when Quvenzhané Wallis became the youngest nominee in the category of Leading Actress in a film. Her performance in Beasts of the Southern Wild was absolutely remarkable, and I for one cheered when her name was announced as a nominee. But, predictably, this was not the reaction from everyone. The reaction to her nomination can perhaps be best summed up by this article, entitled "Sorry, Quvenzhane Wallis, but Best Actress Oscar Nods Are for Big Kids." This article does not deny that Wallis gives a strong performance-- the author says of Wallis that "she's hugely magnetic, and she commands the screen to an extent most adult performers could only dream of." But this author nonetheless claims that Wallis should not have been nominated because "she's too young." She goes so far as to say that Wallis is not giving a performance...even though she's clearly  playing a role who is not herself, is reciting lines already written in a script, and clearly making conscious choices the way any actor would. The author does address this, but claims that her successful performance was due entirely to her director, Benh Zeitlin. This might be true-- we will never know. But no one said the same thing about Barkhad Abdi, an Oscar nominee the following year for his work in Captain Phillips. Abdi also gives a fantastic performance, and was my choice for who should have won the award. Like Wallis, his nomination came from his very first acting performance (before the film, he worked as a cab driver). Who's to say that his director did not use editing to make Abdi's look performance better than it was? Again, we don't know, but we give him the benefit of the doubt the assume that Abdi's performance was a result of his own work. This benefit of the doubt is not applied to a young actor like Wallis simply because of her age. There can be no other reason.

This stigma can even extend to the actor after they've already grown up. I already mentioned Jennifer Lawrence as a former child actor, and I truly think people don't realize how young she is. Lawrence is, at the time of this writing, only 23, but the roles which have brought her to national attention have all been considerably older. In Silver Linings Playbook, a movie that was released when she had just turned 22, her character was already a divorcee. In American Hustle, she's married to Christian Bale (another child actor) who in real life is almost twice her age. Even in her work in the X-Men franchise, her character is supposed to be the same age as James McAvoy, who is 13 years older than her. Lawrence has managed to avoid the stigma against younger actors because she tackles adult roles, and it has served her very well (it doesn't hurt that she's incredibly talented). Meanwhile, an actor like Daniel Radcliffe might never be able to shake this stigma. Radcliffe's work in the early Harry Potter movies is kind of iffy, and initially I wasn't much of a fan of his performance. But over the years, he has grown into an incredibly talented actor-- not surprising given that he grew up acting with some of the very best thespians Britain has to offer. As already mentioned, Radcliffe has tackled some challenging roles, both in the world of theater and film. So has his co-star Emma Watson. Both have been praised for their choices of tackling more adult projects-- but you know they had to do this out of necessity. Even while proving his merit time and time again, Radcliffe seems to have trouble being taken seriously. While his work is well-received by critics and audiences alike, Radcliffe is still not able to shake his Harry Potter image. This morning, the Tony nominations were announced and, despite giving a solid performance in Martin McDonagh's The Cripple of Inishmaan, he was not nominated, even thought the show itself received multiple nominations. This is his second snub-- he was expected to be nominated a few years ago for his well-received performance in How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying. His snub is especially egregious when one considers how much the Tonys really like to nominate movie stars. If he were just any movie star, Radcliffe would have been a shoo-in for a nomination at least one of these times. But since he's a former child star, he seems to be ignored by the Tonys. (Seriously, forget the complaints about Leonardo DiCaprio not getting an Oscar-- there should be a meme for Daniel Radcliffe trying to win a Tony).

Daniel Radcliffe in a most certainly adult role.

I do understand why this stigma exists. There are some really terrible performances by child actors out there. Typically these kids are not even actors-- they're some producer's kid who is hired because those involved don't think they'll find a kid who's any better. And when people see these performances, it enhances the idea that children cannot act. It also doesn't help that the child actors on shows on Nickelodeon and Disney are generally directed to give over-the-top performances which rely more on enthusiasm than actual acting. But, just like with adults, there are bad child actors, and good child actors. And it's unfortunate how the instances of the bad inform opinions of the good. While this is certainly not the most important form of discrimination that is faced in this business, it certainly exists. And it's something to be mindful of. The next time you watch Beasts of the Southern Wild, appreciate how much faith is put in the, at the time, six-year old actress. And, more importantly, appreciate how admirably she rises to the challenge.