Greg Grunberg on E! Just mentioned Hugh and Jesse

Next year Hugh. Next year. Yep. These setbacks will make his eventual victory all the sweeter. I watched when Susan Lucci finally won her Emmy and it was amazing (not that their track records compare at this point).

Well, objectively, without any bias was Spaders's perfromance better than Hugh Laurie this year? What do you all think? I don't think so. Could anyone have better played the role of House, the scenes last year than HL?Or could he himself have played better? Again, I dont agree except the last part because HL is amazing. He was perfect in portraying every bit of emotion, the subtle nuances of the character......... he was brilliant in every single scene he played.....................................................................................and I am not being partial. I am incredibly sad and angry :( :cry: :x What does it takes to get an emmy? What do the emmy voters see? IMO emmy voters are blind and artistically challenged. :evil: :curse:

Well, objectively, without any bias was Spaders's perfromance better than Hugh Laurie this year? What do you all think? I don't think so. I'm a BL fan, so no objectivity from me. I feel torn because as I wrote in HL's thread, one side of me is sad about him not winning and the other side of me is just bursting of excitement of Spader's win. In all honesty, Spader's work in the episode he submitted was probably better than HL's work in the episode HL submitted. If HL had submitted another episode, I might had a different opinion. I didn't like the one he submitted that much.

I disagree but everybody has his/her own opinion, so no point in discussing it. But the title of the award should atleast change to "Outstanding Performance in an Episode in a Drama series" instead of "Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series" from next year.

E online has video on the front page of Hugh's red carpet bit. And you can vote on Hugh's Glam cam, which is astonishingly hot. Slo-mo all the way up and down his body.

I would not have been upset had Gandolfini won. I am the first to admit that the last season of The Sopranos was flawed, but Gandolfini's performance in the episode "Kennedy and Heidi" was stellar, and I don't think (if going on single episode performances only) there was a better one this year. Hugh would be my second choice, followed by Denis Leary. I have nothing against James Spader but IMO his performance is not great enough for him to get this, his THIRD Emmy for playing Alan Shore. My honest reaction is, "WTF?" Compared to Hugh, Gandolfini and Denis Leary, I think he paled in comparison. Aside from the first season, I think this was the year that Gandolfini really was outstanding as Tony Soprano, it was also the year where Denis Leary really came into his own and of course HL is long overdue. I think Boston Legal is a mediocre show and Spader's been coasting.

Here's one explanation for the way the vote went: Hugh absolutely carries an hour long drama for 24 episodes. He's the primary focus of every episode and appears in practically every scene. The greatness of his performance is his creation of a memorable character and the consistent excellence of his work. Spader is in an ensemble show where he gets to coast much of the time. He gets the main focus a few times a season and scripts that give him the chance to knock it out of the park once in a while, which provides him with at least one excellent episode to submit for Emmy voting. Or there's this explanation: All the knowledgeable voters split their votes between Hugh and Gandolfini and the rest voted for Spader.

Leary's expression when Spader won was beyond priceless. He looked like someone had kicked him in the nads. It was priceless. I know he's a hopeless Hugh fanboy so maybe he wouldn't have looked like he was going to launch into The Downtrodden Song if HL had won.

Leary's expression when Spader won was beyond priceless. He looked like someone had kicked him in the nads. Well, triteness does kick us in the nads. And yes, I consider Spader's performance trite. Gandolfini seems to work on the character; he tries to redefine it to show the process Tony Soprano goes through. With Spader, it's as if he's put on the Alan Shore suit and while it's not one-note as such, it seems to me that he uses one-note acting. The scene needs shouting? Well, here's the Alan Shore Shout. A bit of comedy? Use the Alan Shore Humour Setting. Boston Legal is a good show and Spader is a good better actor – better than most in fact – but he's IMHO not as versatile or as daring as Gandolfini or Hugh Laurie.

A few after party pictures of Jen, Jesse and Hugh: http://community.livejournal.com/house_cameron/2441614.html

James Spader taking the Emmy again this year was an abomination. But not a complete surprise, IMO. My completely uninformed take on why Spader continues to win at the Emmys is that the structure of the courtroom drama like "Boston Legal" is ready-made for Emmy success. The trial usually ends with a final summation from both the defense and the prosecution in which both sides present their most cogent, emotionally effective, and legally compelling arguments before a jury which acts as an audience substitute. This long-form speech allows the writers to craft detailed and complicated expository paragraphs. Which in turn give the actor a chance to seize the screen for a long period of time with no back and forth with another character. The summation can be emotionally complex and is the definition of dramatic, with the very outcome of the trial and the life-or-death result for the client resting on the lawyer's rhetorical and persuasive skills. Nothing of this kind exists in the world of "House." Neither House nor any of the other characters speak in long, uninterrupted set pieces. Back-and-forth, rather than lengthy exposition is the hallmark of this show. In adddition, House is perhaps the most withdrawn, emotionally unavailable character on primetime TV. This means that we are rarely given an extended scene which allows House to uncork and deliver powerful speeches which delve into the heart of the character. Nor does the drama of "House" depend on the ability of the lead character to offer persuasive speeches which turn the outcome of the case. Actions rather than speeches are the linchpins of the show. So I think that as long as "House" sticks to this rhetorical style, Hugh will be at a disadvantage in the Emmy competition. I watched the "House" marathon on USA last weekend and was struck again by how perfectly Hugh delivered one of the longest speeches of the season, the "buraka" speech toward the end of "Coma Guy." I think that this episode should have been Hugh's submission for Emmy. I think he might have stood a chance with it. If David Shore, or preferably Doris Egan, writes Hugh an intricate emotional and high powered speech for some time in Season 4 then perhaps he can have a real shot at persuading the Emmy voters to award him the prize next year.

I don't believe KS ever has long speeches in 24. I'm not sure if that's what wins Emmy's, but it sure doesn't hurt. Alan Shore always delivers in his closing arguments.