Why ‘Game of Thrones’ and ‘Veep’ might repeat at the Emmys, plus love for Samantha Bee

Emmy nominations will be announced Thursday morning, which means it’s prime time to convene our Buzzmeter panelists – USA Today’s Robert Bianco, TV Guide’s Matt Roush, Gold Derby prognosticator Tom O’Neil and L.A. Times columnists Mary McNamara and Glenn Whipp – and ask them to survey the scene and stump for their favorites.

“Game of Thrones” and “Veep” won the series Emmys for the first time last year. Have they done enough with their current seasons to warrant repeat victories?

McNamara: “Game of Thrones” certainly had one of, if not the, strongest seasons of its run. Yes, of course, it warrants a repeat. In these days, I am a vocal opponent of repeats, but the academy hasn’t listened thus far. So … yes, if “Modern Family” could win all those years, “Game of Thrones” should be able to pull two in a row. As for “Veep,” given the current state of politics in this country and how close the show came to hitting bone … that wouldn’t surprise me either. I was not a big fan of the finale, but it was quite brave, and we give extra points for that.

O’Neil: They will probably triumph again, because both TV shows continue to climb creatively while gaining more and more industry admirers. In “Veep’s” case, there’s that real U.S. presidential race going on with a woman at the top of the Democratic ticket too. That’s sure gotta help.

Roush: Both have to be seen as front-runners, given Emmy voters’ inclinations to reward what’s already been rewarded. And while “Game of Thrones” didn’t really pick up steam until the end, those last episodes were so epic and satisfying it may leave everything else in the dust. “Veep” made the most of a fraught situation with the electoral tie, but the writing often felt like it was straining for its usual vulgarity. Depending on what else gets nominated, I’d like to see the Emmys mix it up a bit.

Whipp: Both shows were just as good, if not better, this year. Outside of the competition, nobody will complain if they win again.

Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert won the last 13 variety series Emmys. Stewart retired and Colbert is no longer playing “Colbert.” What show should break through this year and win the variety talk series Emmy?

Roush: Many may argue that Jimmy Fallon finally deserves it for revitalizing “The Tonight Show” and keeping the show on top, post-Leno. But who has had a bigger impact (if not in ratings, then in cultural visibility) than CBS’ late-late host, James Corden. Versatile, lovable, with the explosion of “Carpool Karaoke” as a viral phenomenon. He could and should also win for his Tonys hosting gig.

Bianco: For me, the race this year is between “The Late Late Show With James Corden,” based almost entirely on his Carpool Karaoke breakthrough, and “Full Frontal With Samantha Bee.” Considering this is an election year, and “Bee” is brilliant, I’d go with Bee.

McNamara: Samantha Bee’s “Full Frontal.” Next question.

×

Samantha Bee of “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee” sits down with Times writer Glenn Whipp to talk about the perfect timing of starting a political satire show during this year’s election.

Emmy voters hew to the familiar, so change sometimes comes only when a show leaves the air. With “Mad Men” gone from the drama series category, what previously unrecognized show should take its place?

McNamara: “Outlander.” Beautifully performed, gorgeously shot and lyrically written, “Outlander” proves that “prestige” television can be sweeping both historically and romantically. Its second season was even better than the first. It really should have nominations all around.

Bianco: The show that most deserves to break into the drama series category this year is the one that most deserved to do so last year. And the year before that. And the year before that: “The Americans.”

Roush: Hands down, FX’s “The Americans.” Long overdue, and this spy thriller just keeps getting more intense by the season. This is by far the best show the Emmy voters keep ignoring, and this year deserves to be its breakthrough.

Whipp: Louis C.K.’s “Horace and Pete” floored me. Its characters and their devastating story stayed with me for a good week after I finished the last episode. My wife would ask: “What’s wrong with you? You’re not still thinking about that damn ‘Horace and Pete,’ are you?” And I’d answer: “Ummm … how could you tell? Ooooh, right. That open bottle of pills on the bedside table. Let me just put that away.”

Most laudable newcomer: “Master of None,” “Mr. Robot,” “UnREAL,” “Underground” or “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend? (Or did we miss your favorite Emmy-worthy newcomer? Stump for it!)

Roush: I love all of these shows and hope they all get noticed. But for drama, “Mr. Robot” is so fresh and startling, reminiscent of those revolutionary movies from the 1970s, that it even trumps the sizzling “UnReal.” In comedy, I’d love to see the CW finally get its due with the reckless, funny “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.” If the show gets passed over, which I expect will happen, at least give Rachel Bloom a nod for being so fearless in her comedy and music.

Bianco: “Master of None” and “Mr. Robot” merit Emmy notice and will probably get it. So were I to stump for a show, it would be “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend,” a creative, inventive, whip-smart, Emmy-worthy comedy on a network that up to now has proved to be Emmy Kryptonite. The time has come to change that.

Whipp: “Mr. Robot” and “Master of None” were, along with “Horace and Pete” (I mentioned that program, right?), my favorite shows of the past year. Very different programs, obviously, but each, in its own way, looking at the challenges people have in connecting with each other (and their own humanity) in this age of information overload.

McNamara: I’m just very happy that I’m not a member of the television academy.

[email protected]