Latest news with #TheSopranos
Sydney Morning Herald
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Sydney Morning Herald
Squid Game, Andor snubbed: Does anyone at the Emmys know what they are doing?
It's a familiar refrain in the world of awards nights: shocks, surprises and snubs. Every year there's a victory lap for the ones that made it - Severance, The Studio - and a lot of hand-wringing over those that did not - The Squid Game, the cast of Andor and more. Of course, they are not alone. In the history of the Emmys, the road to the chicken fricassee and lemon parfait at the Governor's Ball is littered with the corpses of the shows that never got their due, and the performances that were overlooked. The Wire? It isn't enough that it's widely considered to be the best scripted drama of all time, and consistently tops audience and expert polls, but for the duration of its run it received only two – that's correct two – nominations for an Emmy Award, and no wins. During original run of The Wire – 2002 to 2008 – the winners of the best drama Emmy were The West Wing, The Sopranos, Lost, 24 and Mad Men. All deserving winners, but was each better than The Wire? The West Wing, The Sopranos and Mad Men, perhaps, but Lost and 24? Better Call Saul (2015-2022) has more nominations than many of us have had hot dinners, but no wins. Parks and Recreation (2009-2015) was also ignored for a long time, while arguably weaker comedies got all the love. And deeper in the history books, truly groundbreaking shows, such as Good Times (1974-1979) and Oz (1997-2003) got zip. Which begs the question: does anyone at the Emmys know what they are doing? Loading If they do not, they might not be alone. Australia's Logies have, for several years, blended the everyone-knows-where-they-stand 'popular' and 'outstanding' categories into a nebulous the half-data, half-good luck moniker 'best'. It wouldn't be an issue, if it was not giving us some 1975 vibes. The Oscars aren't much better. They gave the Oscar that should have gone to Citizen Kane in 1941 to How Green Was My Valley. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial got nothing. And despite Rebecca (1940), Lifeboat (1944), Spellbound (1945), Rear Window (1954) and Psycho (1960) getting nominations, Alfred Hitchcock never won a directing Oscar.
The Age
a day ago
- Entertainment
- The Age
Squid Game, Andor snubbed: Does anyone at the Emmys know what they are doing?
It's a familiar refrain in the world of awards nights: shocks, surprises and snubs. Every year there's a victory lap for the ones that made it - Severance, The Studio - and a lot of hand-wringing over those that did not - The Squid Game, the cast of Andor and more. Of course, they are not alone. In the history of the Emmys, the road to the chicken fricassee and lemon parfait at the Governor's Ball is littered with the corpses of the shows that never got their due, and the performances that were overlooked. The Wire? It isn't enough that it's widely considered to be the best scripted drama of all time, and consistently tops audience and expert polls, but for the duration of its run it received only two – that's correct two – nominations for an Emmy Award, and no wins. During original run of The Wire – 2002 to 2008 – the winners of the best drama Emmy were The West Wing, The Sopranos, Lost, 24 and Mad Men. All deserving winners, but was each better than The Wire? The West Wing, The Sopranos and Mad Men, perhaps, but Lost and 24? Better Call Saul (2015-2022) has more nominations than many of us have had hot dinners, but no wins. Parks and Recreation (2009-2015) was also ignored for a long time, while arguably weaker comedies got all the love. And deeper in the history books, truly groundbreaking shows, such as Good Times (1974-1979) and Oz (1997-2003) got zip. Which begs the question: does anyone at the Emmys know what they are doing? Loading If they do not, they might not be alone. Australia's Logies have, for several years, blended the everyone-knows-where-they-stand 'popular' and 'outstanding' categories into a nebulous the half-data, half-good luck moniker 'best'. It wouldn't be an issue, if it was not giving us some 1975 vibes. The Oscars aren't much better. They gave the Oscar that should have gone to Citizen Kane in 1941 to How Green Was My Valley. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial got nothing. And despite Rebecca (1940), Lifeboat (1944), Spellbound (1945), Rear Window (1954) and Psycho (1960) getting nominations, Alfred Hitchcock never won a directing Oscar.
Perth Now
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Perth Now
Six Feet Under was underappreciated, says Michael C Hall
Michael C Hall thinks Six Feet Under was "underappreciated". The 54-year-old actor starred in the hit drama series between 2001 and 2005, but Michael doesn't think the show gets the respect that it deserves for breaking "storytelling boundaries". He told The Independent: "The Sopranos was like the firstborn, golden son, and Six Feet Under was sort of the black-sheep sibling. It existed, zeitgeist-wise, or priorities-of-the-network-wise, in the shadow of The Sopranos. But I don't have a chip on my shoulder about Six Feet Under being massively underappreciated." Six Feet Under followed a family who ran a funeral home in Los Angeles, and Michael thinks it proved to be hugely influential within the TV industry The actor said: "I knew it meant a great deal to people who loved it, and it broke storytelling boundaries in a way that paved the way for a great many storytellers that followed." Meanwhile, Michael is reprising the role of Dexter Morgan for Dexter: Resurrection. The sequel series sees Dexter awake from a coma, and Michael admits that he found the idea of reviving the iconic TV character to be "enticing". The actor shared: "I became increasingly compelled by the notion that, if he didn't die, Dexter may finally find himself liberated. "He's been lugging around and brooding over his past for many years, and the idea of finding him in a new environment was enticing. It always felt like a crapshoot, a dice roll, whatever you want to call it – but it was worth rolling those dice." The sequel series stars the likes of Uma Thurman and Peter Dinklage, and Michael admits that much of his career success stems from the talented people he's worked with. Michael - who also reprised the role of Dexter for Dexter: New Blood and Dexter: Original Sin - explained: "As an actor, you're only as good as the people you're acting with. "And it was gratifying that people of this calibre joined us – it gave us a sense that, OK, we're not out of our minds. If Peter Dinklage or Uma Thurman saw something they thought was a horrendous idea, they wouldn't sign up."
New York Times
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- New York Times
Comfort Viewing
Everyone seems to be rewatching the prestige shows of the early 21st century lately. (Yes, we are one-quarter of the way through this century. I don't know how to process that either.) Every week, I hear that someone else is working their way through 'The Sopranos.' (Consensus: It holds up.) I have no fewer than three friends who are rewatching 'Mad Men.' ('I can't believe we used to get shows like this,' one mused, perhaps referring obliquely to the heaps of Mid TV washing up on our streaming shores these days.) Don't even get me started on the 'Girls' aficionados — all rediscovering how droll and nostalgic and perfectly of its time it was. Why rewatch a show when we have so little time on earth? Why watch something you've already seen when there's nowhere near enough time to make it through all the queues and wish lists and playlists and recommendations dashed down in the Notes app? There's the quality factor: I'm not taking a risk on a flashy new show that could turn out to be a total snooze when I already know something older is good. Then there's the element of comfort: It's cozy to revisit characters that feel like old friends, plots that we can recall broadly, even if we can't exactly conjure the details. Nostalgia figures in — I remember watching 'The Sopranos' in my first post-college apartment, on VHS, on a 13-inch TV set that had a built-in VCR. Rewatching demands a different type of attention than a first watch does. You know what's going to happen, so you don't have to make sure you're clocking each turn of the story. You can focus on the stuff that might have escaped you on first viewing — the sets, the actors' tiniest gestures. You can wander around a scene without worrying you're going to lose the plot. I had the blissful experience of rewatching 'Fleabag' recently. It came out in the U.S. in 2016, hardly a relic of an earlier era but long enough ago that I was ready to reimmerse myself in its daffy, heartbreaking, ultimately redeeming world. On first watch, I was so enchanted by the show's unconventional style (Phoebe Waller-Bridge, as Fleabag, regularly addresses the camera, breaking the fourth wall) that I paid less attention to the supporting characters — Olivia Colman as Fleabag's deliciously passive-aggressive stepmother, Sian Clifford as her uptight sister. On this repeat viewing, I was able to appreciate these performances wholeheartedly. I was chatting with a friend about rewatching things, about how, despite the consolations of getting reacquainted with an old favorite, I can't help but feel like I'm wasting time that I should be spending on things I haven't seen yet. My friend pointed out that we go to museums and galleries to look at a painting we love again and again without worrying that our time would be better spent on paintings we haven't seen. Why should TV be any different? Rewatching is its own cultural activity, not necessarily inferior or redundant. If it's pleasurable, soothing, enlightening — there's really no need to judge the practice any further. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
India Today
09-07-2025
- Business
- India Today
HBO Max returns: Warner Bros. drops 'Max' rebrand after backlash
Warner Bros. Discovery officially abandoned its rebranding of its streaming service to 'Max' and reverted to HBO Max this week. The company had announced the reversal in May and officially implemented it this week in a dramatic brand decision to shorten the platform's name to 'Max' in 2023 aimed to broaden its appeal by distancing the service from HBO's highbrow image. Executives hoped it would better reflect the blend of content from Warner Bros. and Discovery's more mainstream networks like HGTV and Food Network. However, the move failed to gain traction with the company has acknowledged that the HBO brand still holds powerful sway with consumers who associate it with premium content and storytelling excellence. A LEGACY OF PRESTIGE HBO established itself over the years through iconic shows like The Sopranos, Game of Thrones, Sex and the City, and more recently, The White Lotus. These programs helped HBO become the pioneer of prestige TV. Even after the name change to Max, it was HBO's original content that attracted established itself over the years through iconic shows like The Sopranos, Game of Thrones, Sex and the City, and more recently, The White Lotus. These programmes helped HBO become a pioneer of prestige TV. Even after the name change to Max, it was HBO's original content that continued to attract FOCUS SHIFTS TO QUALITY According to company executives, the latest change reflects a broader trend: consumers today value quality over quantity. 'No one is asking for more content,' Warner Bros. Discovery stated. 'What people really want is better content.'As reported by Los Angeles Time, this marks the fifth name change for the service in 15 years, beginning with HBO Go, followed by HBO Now, then HBO Max, later simplified to Max, and now back current Max subscribers won't need to download a new app. The platform will automatically update its logo and branding, shifting from a blue 'Max' design to a sleek black HBO Max interface.- Ends
