2006 Emmy Award Nominations
I agree Magilla that no one can wipe their memories free of whatever they've seen this past television season and I'm sure on some level that affects who and what a voter will be drawn to. But I think it's easy to guess that people who work in television may not have a lot of time to sit around watching every episode of every sitcom or drama.
I think the best examples of how the new system affected the results is to look for shows that scored (or didn't score) in categories under the old system, and then conversely did or didn't score under the new. "Weeds" is a good example. Its omission from Best Comedy is not shocking since that category was so competitive and the show is very new. But Parker's omission IS. Then look to the supporting category where Elizabeth Perkins made it in ("Weeds" also got in for Casting, a couple of techs and Directing) - Perkins got in under the old system where buzz and popularity no doubt, helped a plurality of voters check off a sassy character in a hot new show. But for Lead Actress/Comedy, when forced to view sample episodes, it appears that voters stuck to their impressions of those episodes rather than the general buzz that dictated their tastes in the supporting categories. And this time around, though Parker is spectacular in every episode and especially the one she submitted, their lousy taste went for obvious laughs. I really DO think this new system proves that a large number of Emmy voters have awful taste and when they have made inspiring choices in the past ("Arrested Development", "The Sopranos") it was either because of buzz or because a particular episode happened to fall within the range of their limited, sentimental, scenery chewing taste.
I think the best examples of how the new system affected the results is to look for shows that scored (or didn't score) in categories under the old system, and then conversely did or didn't score under the new. "Weeds" is a good example. Its omission from Best Comedy is not shocking since that category was so competitive and the show is very new. But Parker's omission IS. Then look to the supporting category where Elizabeth Perkins made it in ("Weeds" also got in for Casting, a couple of techs and Directing) - Perkins got in under the old system where buzz and popularity no doubt, helped a plurality of voters check off a sassy character in a hot new show. But for Lead Actress/Comedy, when forced to view sample episodes, it appears that voters stuck to their impressions of those episodes rather than the general buzz that dictated their tastes in the supporting categories. And this time around, though Parker is spectacular in every episode and especially the one she submitted, their lousy taste went for obvious laughs. I really DO think this new system proves that a large number of Emmy voters have awful taste and when they have made inspiring choices in the past ("Arrested Development", "The Sopranos") it was either because of buzz or because a particular episode happened to fall within the range of their limited, sentimental, scenery chewing taste.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19377
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
The presumption that the blue panel members, or at least a majority of them, are unfamiliar with what's on TV on a regular basis and must rely on submissions is absurd. It is just as absurd to suggest that they put out of their heads what they've seen beyond the submitted episodes.
I think the most telling comment in this article is "at the panels, the ha-ha comedies had 'em rolling in the aisles." Either they judge comedy by the number of guffaws and don't get sublte humor or there really was no subtelty in the Desperate Housewives and Entourage submissions. As I recall the season opener for D.H. was a pretty dismal affair. The show really didn't pick up steam until near the end of the season and by then it was too late. Also, the show's four stars have been greatly over-exposed. We now know more about Teri Hatcher's sex life or the lack thereof than we know what's in our under the bathroom sink cabinets. Only Felicity Huffman's character actually had range this season. Marcia Cross seemed to be channeling her nutso character from Melrose Place while Hatcher, Eva Longoria and Nicollete Sheridan seemed to be showing up just to collect their paychecks. The best of the male supporting players, Steven Culp, was killed off in season one - his guest appearance in the final episode of season two showed how sorely he was missed all season. Only guest stars Shirley Knight and Lesley Ann Warren did anything close to stretching their considerable acting chops.
More perplexing are the omissions of Jason Bateman, Jessica Walter, Hugh Laurie and Patricia Arquette.
I think the most telling comment in this article is "at the panels, the ha-ha comedies had 'em rolling in the aisles." Either they judge comedy by the number of guffaws and don't get sublte humor or there really was no subtelty in the Desperate Housewives and Entourage submissions. As I recall the season opener for D.H. was a pretty dismal affair. The show really didn't pick up steam until near the end of the season and by then it was too late. Also, the show's four stars have been greatly over-exposed. We now know more about Teri Hatcher's sex life or the lack thereof than we know what's in our under the bathroom sink cabinets. Only Felicity Huffman's character actually had range this season. Marcia Cross seemed to be channeling her nutso character from Melrose Place while Hatcher, Eva Longoria and Nicollete Sheridan seemed to be showing up just to collect their paychecks. The best of the male supporting players, Steven Culp, was killed off in season one - his guest appearance in the final episode of season two showed how sorely he was missed all season. Only guest stars Shirley Knight and Lesley Ann Warren did anything close to stretching their considerable acting chops.
More perplexing are the omissions of Jason Bateman, Jessica Walter, Hugh Laurie and Patricia Arquette.
Penelope, you're absolutely right. Although having to sit through twenty-plus hours of some of the crud that must be submitted would be pure torture. But the individual episode approach helps a truly terrible (at least from the couple of episodes I've seen) show like Two and a Half Men to get a best comedy nomination.
A few of my MIA contenders:
Lauren Ambrose, Rachel Griffiths and Michael C Hall, all of whom were wonderful in the final season of Six Feet Under, and far more deserving than Krause. I hope Conroy finally manages a win, and think she will if the Emmys can get over their ongoing love affair with Alison Janney.
Marcia Cross and Shawn Pyfrom. Their fiery, genuinely original mother-son relationship stood out in the generally so-so second season of Desperate Housewives and actually turned me into a semi-regular viewer of a show which had initially turned me right off. It helped a lot that Pyfrom is damn gorgeous.
Zach Braff and John C McGinley. Come on! Braff made it last year, but McGinley looks set to be one of the great TV characters never recognised by the Emmys.
And of course the obvious - Jason Bateman, James Gandolfini, Edie Falco.
A few of my MIA contenders:
Lauren Ambrose, Rachel Griffiths and Michael C Hall, all of whom were wonderful in the final season of Six Feet Under, and far more deserving than Krause. I hope Conroy finally manages a win, and think she will if the Emmys can get over their ongoing love affair with Alison Janney.
Marcia Cross and Shawn Pyfrom. Their fiery, genuinely original mother-son relationship stood out in the generally so-so second season of Desperate Housewives and actually turned me into a semi-regular viewer of a show which had initially turned me right off. It helped a lot that Pyfrom is damn gorgeous.
Zach Braff and John C McGinley. Come on! Braff made it last year, but McGinley looks set to be one of the great TV characters never recognised by the Emmys.
And of course the obvious - Jason Bateman, James Gandolfini, Edie Falco.
Once again, shouldn't they have to watch all episodes of a season to really give an informed vote? SO many series (Housewives, Lost, West Wing, Sopranos, Rescue Me, etc.) utilize a serialized approach to storytelling that watching an episode out of sequence really can't give one the flavor of a show. I mean, what it comes down to is picking the "best" episode, which may or may not be a reflection of the entire season.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
From Variety:
WHEN HOT IS NOW NOT
'Housewives,' 'Lost' denied Emmy noms
By MICHAEL SCHNEIDER
A new mystery is brewing on Wisteria Lane: Why did Emmy thumb its nose at the "Desperate Housewives"?
The sudser failed to earn a nomination for outstanding comedy, and none of its stars appeared in the top acting categories.
Meanwhile, Emmy watchers were also stunned by another glaring omission: Last year's outstanding drama series winner, "Lost," didn't make the cut this year.
At ABC, the surprise shutouts stung on what was otherwise a stellar day for the net. The Alphabet web led all broadcasters in nominations, and its breakout hit "Grey's Anatomy" took home an impressive 11 nods -- the second most of any series (behind only "24").
But the "Housewives" and "Lost" snubs left ABC execs scratching their heads.
"It seems to reflect some lingering issues in the new nomination process that may still need to be addressed," said a network spokesman.
Last year, "Housewives" scored 15 nominations -- the most of any series (tied with "Will & Grace"). That tally included nods for outstanding comedy series, as well as three of the five comedy actress spots (Teri Hatcher, Marcia Cross and eventual winner Felicity Huffman).
This year, supporting actress Alfre Woodard earned a nom, as did guest actress Shirley Knight. "Housewives" still scored seven nominations overall, but most of them were in craft categories, including art direction, costumes and hairstyling.
Granted, some critics believed that "Housewives" hit a creative sophomore slump, and that the wide exposure of the "Housewives" stars (who were magazine cover regulars in the show's first year) may have prompted a slight backlash from voters.
But "Housewives" remains a Nielsen powerhouse, and picked up creatively later in the year. In the end, the decision to enter "Housewives" in the comedy category may have hurt its chances.
According to TV academy rules senior VP John Leverence, dramedies like "Housewives" face an uphill Emmy battle because they're "neither fish nor fowl."
"To a certain degree that's advantageous because you're a broader-ranging program," he said. "But on the other hand you don't have the concentration of drama or comedy that a straight drama or comedy would have."
Earlier this year, the TV Academy issued a rule clarification on how to handle "dramedies." Now, according to the org, shows must prove that at least six episodes over the course of a season contained enough comedic material to be considered for outstanding comedy consideration -- or enough drama for the drama categories.
That clarification, however, stopped short of actually ruling on whether hourlongs like "Housewives" or "Boston Legal" should be allowed to compete against sitcoms. That's because the burden of proof is relatively small.
While guffaws of laughter were heard in the rooms when straight sitcoms like "Two and a Half Men" were played for the new blue-ribbon panels, shows like "Housewives" and "Entourage," by their nature, contain fewer laughs.
"At the panels, the ha-ha comedies had 'em rolling in the aisles," Leverence said. "Whereas 'Desperate Housewives' does a both a drama dance and a comedy dance. Having the dramatic elements in with the comedic perhaps tended to dilute the force of the comedic."
As for "Lost," the show may have also been hurt by the blue ribbon proceedings. Voters who weren't regular viewers of the show may not have been able to keep up with the show's rich mythology.
Leverence said "24" managed to avoid that problem by submitting its first episode of the season, which laid the groundwork for the year but wasn't hindered by a complicated backstory.
"If 'Lost' in fact chose an episode that was midway into a very complex action and you had people in that room who were seeing it for the first time, there's a distinct possibility they might not have gotten it," Leverence said. "It might not have had that kind of resonance that a non-serialized program would have."
Date in print: Fri., Jul. 7, 2006, Los Angeles
WHEN HOT IS NOW NOT
'Housewives,' 'Lost' denied Emmy noms
By MICHAEL SCHNEIDER
A new mystery is brewing on Wisteria Lane: Why did Emmy thumb its nose at the "Desperate Housewives"?
The sudser failed to earn a nomination for outstanding comedy, and none of its stars appeared in the top acting categories.
Meanwhile, Emmy watchers were also stunned by another glaring omission: Last year's outstanding drama series winner, "Lost," didn't make the cut this year.
At ABC, the surprise shutouts stung on what was otherwise a stellar day for the net. The Alphabet web led all broadcasters in nominations, and its breakout hit "Grey's Anatomy" took home an impressive 11 nods -- the second most of any series (behind only "24").
But the "Housewives" and "Lost" snubs left ABC execs scratching their heads.
"It seems to reflect some lingering issues in the new nomination process that may still need to be addressed," said a network spokesman.
Last year, "Housewives" scored 15 nominations -- the most of any series (tied with "Will & Grace"). That tally included nods for outstanding comedy series, as well as three of the five comedy actress spots (Teri Hatcher, Marcia Cross and eventual winner Felicity Huffman).
This year, supporting actress Alfre Woodard earned a nom, as did guest actress Shirley Knight. "Housewives" still scored seven nominations overall, but most of them were in craft categories, including art direction, costumes and hairstyling.
Granted, some critics believed that "Housewives" hit a creative sophomore slump, and that the wide exposure of the "Housewives" stars (who were magazine cover regulars in the show's first year) may have prompted a slight backlash from voters.
But "Housewives" remains a Nielsen powerhouse, and picked up creatively later in the year. In the end, the decision to enter "Housewives" in the comedy category may have hurt its chances.
According to TV academy rules senior VP John Leverence, dramedies like "Housewives" face an uphill Emmy battle because they're "neither fish nor fowl."
"To a certain degree that's advantageous because you're a broader-ranging program," he said. "But on the other hand you don't have the concentration of drama or comedy that a straight drama or comedy would have."
Earlier this year, the TV Academy issued a rule clarification on how to handle "dramedies." Now, according to the org, shows must prove that at least six episodes over the course of a season contained enough comedic material to be considered for outstanding comedy consideration -- or enough drama for the drama categories.
That clarification, however, stopped short of actually ruling on whether hourlongs like "Housewives" or "Boston Legal" should be allowed to compete against sitcoms. That's because the burden of proof is relatively small.
While guffaws of laughter were heard in the rooms when straight sitcoms like "Two and a Half Men" were played for the new blue-ribbon panels, shows like "Housewives" and "Entourage," by their nature, contain fewer laughs.
"At the panels, the ha-ha comedies had 'em rolling in the aisles," Leverence said. "Whereas 'Desperate Housewives' does a both a drama dance and a comedy dance. Having the dramatic elements in with the comedic perhaps tended to dilute the force of the comedic."
As for "Lost," the show may have also been hurt by the blue ribbon proceedings. Voters who weren't regular viewers of the show may not have been able to keep up with the show's rich mythology.
Leverence said "24" managed to avoid that problem by submitting its first episode of the season, which laid the groundwork for the year but wasn't hindered by a complicated backstory.
"If 'Lost' in fact chose an episode that was midway into a very complex action and you had people in that room who were seeing it for the first time, there's a distinct possibility they might not have gotten it," Leverence said. "It might not have had that kind of resonance that a non-serialized program would have."
Date in print: Fri., Jul. 7, 2006, Los Angeles
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19377
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Alfre Woodard got two nominations. She deserved the one she got for The Water Is Wide in which she played a strict disciplinarian schoolteacher/principal who softens under the influence of an awkward first time male teacher. This Hallmark Hall of Fame production is a vast improvement over the 1974 film version, called Conrack.
Did anyone actually see the TV movie Shirley Jones is nominated for or was she nominated soley on the basis of her "for your consideration" ads? Mrs. Marty Ingels does know how to work the media. She is always on Entertainment Tonight and its clones when she is in a new project even one as dismal as Grandma's Boy or as fleeting as her summer replacement job in the Broadway revival of 42nd Street a few seasons back.
Did anyone actually see the TV movie Shirley Jones is nominated for or was she nominated soley on the basis of her "for your consideration" ads? Mrs. Marty Ingels does know how to work the media. She is always on Entertainment Tonight and its clones when she is in a new project even one as dismal as Grandma's Boy or as fleeting as her summer replacement job in the Broadway revival of 42nd Street a few seasons back.
What a horrid list! Seriously, WORST NOMINEES EVER. My god, I didn't think they could eff them up anymore than they always did but this is serious mother effing effing up! To like, the effing degree.
I think this proves that the new process had its heart in the right place (and was probably the smartest and best option at their disposal) - anything that forces voters to watch episodes and vote rather than a popular ballot is in theory a better idea. But alas, for all the rule changes the one thing we cannot legislate is taste. Don't blame the new system then for these god awful, asymmetrical, capriciouc choices. Blame the lousy, lousy LOUSY tastes of Emmy voters. If they were forced to view episodes and vote and THIS is what they came up with then god help us. Maybe buzz and populaaity wasn't so bad after all - it protected the Emmys from the Emmys themselves. We always suspected it but now we have proof. Emmy voters have absolutely no concept of high artistic standard.
I'm happy about "The Sopranos", "The Office" and of course "Arrested Development" but those series would probably have gotten in under the old syetem based on buzz anyway. So I won't give the voters any credit there. And the snub of "Desperate Housewives" and all of its overrated actresses may be the ONLY positive thing I can say about this list. But again, buzz over the critical backlash this season could have yielded that result as well - look no further than Ally McBeal which did "Housewives" one better by actually winning the Emmy (in its second season) for Best Comedy, and then saw its lead star and series dropped from contention the very next year due to terrible reviews. The very same thing was likely to happen to "Desperate Housewives."
And really the bad far outweighs the marginal good. No Gandolfini, Falco or "Lost" is ludicrous. Lauren Graham was screwed under a popular ballot but now we know that Emmy voters just don't get how wonderful she is. They prefer star effing and name whoring to acting achievement (look no further than Stockard Channing, Julia Louise Drefuss and Alfre Woodard) And OH MY GOD I can't believe Mary Louise Parker did not make it in! Really, I almost didn't catch that one because it was such a foregone conclusion that she would get in. It's sad when you consider she would have easily done so under the old system. Sigh.
No Parker or Graham, there goes my reason to watch the Emmys. I'll tune in during the final 10 minutes to root for "Arrested Development" "The Sopranos" and Lisa Kudrow but the rest can kiss my ass.
Oh and Damien, I'm sure you and Anonymous can come to a compromise: Tom O'Neil is an INSANE DOUCHEBAG.
I think this proves that the new process had its heart in the right place (and was probably the smartest and best option at their disposal) - anything that forces voters to watch episodes and vote rather than a popular ballot is in theory a better idea. But alas, for all the rule changes the one thing we cannot legislate is taste. Don't blame the new system then for these god awful, asymmetrical, capriciouc choices. Blame the lousy, lousy LOUSY tastes of Emmy voters. If they were forced to view episodes and vote and THIS is what they came up with then god help us. Maybe buzz and populaaity wasn't so bad after all - it protected the Emmys from the Emmys themselves. We always suspected it but now we have proof. Emmy voters have absolutely no concept of high artistic standard.
I'm happy about "The Sopranos", "The Office" and of course "Arrested Development" but those series would probably have gotten in under the old syetem based on buzz anyway. So I won't give the voters any credit there. And the snub of "Desperate Housewives" and all of its overrated actresses may be the ONLY positive thing I can say about this list. But again, buzz over the critical backlash this season could have yielded that result as well - look no further than Ally McBeal which did "Housewives" one better by actually winning the Emmy (in its second season) for Best Comedy, and then saw its lead star and series dropped from contention the very next year due to terrible reviews. The very same thing was likely to happen to "Desperate Housewives."
And really the bad far outweighs the marginal good. No Gandolfini, Falco or "Lost" is ludicrous. Lauren Graham was screwed under a popular ballot but now we know that Emmy voters just don't get how wonderful she is. They prefer star effing and name whoring to acting achievement (look no further than Stockard Channing, Julia Louise Drefuss and Alfre Woodard) And OH MY GOD I can't believe Mary Louise Parker did not make it in! Really, I almost didn't catch that one because it was such a foregone conclusion that she would get in. It's sad when you consider she would have easily done so under the old system. Sigh.
No Parker or Graham, there goes my reason to watch the Emmys. I'll tune in during the final 10 minutes to root for "Arrested Development" "The Sopranos" and Lisa Kudrow but the rest can kiss my ass.
Oh and Damien, I'm sure you and Anonymous can come to a compromise: Tom O'Neil is an INSANE DOUCHEBAG.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19377
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
They were very annoying. Maybe it was false humility that I remember as long-winded. I just remember wishing she would shut the hell up and get off stage every time she won.dws1982 wrote:FranzFerdinand wrote:not like I've ever seen any of Janney's speeches, were they really long-winded?).
I didn't think they were very long-winded, but her faux-humility when she won always made her wins even more annoying.
Sabin wrote:Here's a quick question: is 'The Office' going to win? I think there's a chance it might.
I think it has a really good shot. They definitely have strong enough episodes--"Fire", "Christmas Party", "Booze Cruise", "The Injury", "The Secret", "Take Your Daughter To Work Day", "Casino Night", et al.
Granted, Arrested Development was the only other nominated show that I watched, so I don't know what kind of material the other shows have.
An extremely mixed bag. And a puzzling one. 'House' but no Laurie, 'The Sopranos' but no Gandolfini or Falco...
And then there's Kevin James. I enjoy Kevin James. But seriously, why Kevin James? I could just as easily ask why Charlie Sheen (and that would be more in the right), but when it comes at the exclusion of Jason Bateman, I become confused. His deadpan perplexion was so key and dependable in what truthfully was a somewhat uneven season. Not to mention holding onto his dignity and comedic timing in a fairly misguided Charlize Theron story arc. I had hoped this would be his chance. Really his only one. Jason Bateman won't be coming back to win any awards in the future, so...just a shame.
Good for Will Arnett. Astonished at the lack of love for Jessica Walter. Good for Jaime Pressly. Did a big double take at seeing no Jason Lee. John Kaszkinski (sp?), Jenna Fisher, and Rainn Wilson will show next year. Steve Carell would seem to have the Emmy locked up. I'm hoping that Denis Leary does as well.
Here's a quick question: is 'The Office' going to win? I think there's a chance it might.
And then there's Kevin James. I enjoy Kevin James. But seriously, why Kevin James? I could just as easily ask why Charlie Sheen (and that would be more in the right), but when it comes at the exclusion of Jason Bateman, I become confused. His deadpan perplexion was so key and dependable in what truthfully was a somewhat uneven season. Not to mention holding onto his dignity and comedic timing in a fairly misguided Charlize Theron story arc. I had hoped this would be his chance. Really his only one. Jason Bateman won't be coming back to win any awards in the future, so...just a shame.
Good for Will Arnett. Astonished at the lack of love for Jessica Walter. Good for Jaime Pressly. Did a big double take at seeing no Jason Lee. John Kaszkinski (sp?), Jenna Fisher, and Rainn Wilson will show next year. Steve Carell would seem to have the Emmy locked up. I'm hoping that Denis Leary does as well.
Here's a quick question: is 'The Office' going to win? I think there's a chance it might.
"How's the despair?"
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
According to Tom's own site, here are the submissions for the nominees (if they are known)
Drama Actress
Conroy ("Everyone's Waiting")
Hargitay ("911")
Sedgwick ("Fantasy Date")
Drama Actor
Krause ("Time Flies")
Leary ("Justice")
Comedy Actor
David ("The Ski Lift")
Comedy Actress
Kaczmarek ("Lois Strikes Back")
Kudrow ("Valerie Does Another Classic Leno")
Drama Actress
Conroy ("Everyone's Waiting")
Hargitay ("911")
Sedgwick ("Fantasy Date")
Drama Actor
Krause ("Time Flies")
Leary ("Justice")
Comedy Actor
David ("The Ski Lift")
Comedy Actress
Kaczmarek ("Lois Strikes Back")
Kudrow ("Valerie Does Another Classic Leno")
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8675
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Falco, in her scenes at the hospital when Tony was touch-and-go, was as good as she has ever been (which is a high standard).Damien wrote:I am pleased that the only two shows I watch were nominated: The Sopranos and Real Time With Bill Maher, although it's absurd that Gandolfini and Falco weren't nominated.
The Oscars can obviously be horrible (cf. four months back), but at least they're horrible in ways that make cracked sense. My problem with the Emmys has always been that they're utterly capricious -- sometimes making good choices, sometime ludicrous ones, with no clear pattern. So, I just tune in with total detachment, cheer if someone I particularly like wins, and forget it instantly.
I don't know if O'Neill's "the chosen episodes are crucial" theory holds any water, bu does anyone know if Hargitay's submission was that show where she talked to/tracked down a little girl on thephone? That to me had "prize" written all over it.
Damien wrote:I saw his bovine face on Scarborough Country twice this past week mouthing about the Star Jones "scandal." My God, this person will do anything to be on TV.
He was supposed to be on one of the nightly Entertainment News Shows last night to talk about the Emmys, but in a perfect twist of irony, he got bumped by Hilary Swank, whose second Oscar win last year was what lead to his ultimate meltdown.
FranzFerdinand wrote:not like I've ever seen any of Janney's speeches, were they really long-winded?).
I didn't think they were very long-winded, but her faux-humility when she won always made her wins even more annoying.