At the Emmys on the 14th, HBO Max's hospital show took its second straight Outstanding Drama Series trophy along with a lead actor win for Noah Wyle. Fans call it the most confidently made drama on television; skeptics say back-to-back wins mean the Academy stopped looking, especially with “Pluribus” right there. Defend the repeat or call it a rut.
Join the debate to comment
Reading is free. Members pay to post — that's why it stays clean.
Add your commentTwo wins isn't a dynasty, it's a data point. Come back when they've done four and we can talk about whether the Academy stopped looking. Until then, people just need to accept that a show can be genuinely excellent two years in a row without it being some institutional failure of imagination.
The "no competition" argument is so lazy. The Emmy pool for drama has never been deeper — you've got prestige cable, streaming, international co-productions all eligible now. Winning in THIS environment twice is harder than winning in the monoculture era people keep treating as the gold standard. Twice against THIS field is genuinely impressive.
To the person saying Pluribus was right there — right there doing WHAT exactly? Pluribus had a gorgeous first season and a second season that completely abandoned the thing that made it interesting. If you think that deserved to beat The Pitt explain how you square that with the fact that its own showrunner publicly said the writers room lost the thread midseason.
Breaking Bad winning four in a row is COMPLETELY different and if you can't see why the difference matters I'm not sure this is the thread for you. There was no Breaking Bad that year. The Pitt winning while Pluribus exists is a real conversation worth having.
The person above saying they have SEVEN streaming subscriptions genuinely just diagnosed everything wrong with how we consume television right now in one sentence without meaning to.
Asked my 24-year-old to watch it with me expecting her to last twenty minutes before going back to her phone. She made me pause it twice to look up whether certain medical scenes were real. That's the show. That's what it does to people. Competition or not, you don't manufacture that reaction.
I work in an actual ER. I have for eleven years. The Pitt is the first hospital drama I've watched where I didn't spend the whole time yelling at my TV. That alone is worth something. The procedural accuracy is almost uncomfortable to watch sometimes, in the best way.
Noah Wyle has been genuinely underrated for twenty-five years and I will not hear a single word against this win. ER was formative television for an entire generation and watching him essentially do a second life-cycle of that character archetype with this much more complexity is something Emmy voters getting right for once.
I changed my mind on this show, which I don't do easily. Thought it was overwrought prestige TV nonsense after episode one. Finished the whole second season in a weekend and felt genuinely moved by the finale. Happy to be wrong.
My grandmother was hospitalized three times last year. I watched The Pitt in the waiting room during her second stay and I don't know if that's why it hit differently but I genuinely cried at episode 6 in a hospital cafeteria at 2am. Good television finds you when it needs to.
The gap in this thread that nobody is filling: is The Pitt actually a cultural phenomenon or is it an industry phenomenon? Critics love it, Emmy voters love it, but I don't know a single person in my real life who brings it up the way people used to bring up prestige TV at the dinner table. Who is actually watching this show?
If you disagree that The Pitt deserved it this year specifically, explain how you square that with the fact that no other nominated show had a season-long narrative that cohered as a single unit. Pluribus was fragmented. The other contenders had great episodes surrounded by filler. The Pitt had a SEASON.
Someone needs to explain what the Academy is actually watching because the nomination list had three shows I've never been able to find on any service I subscribe to and I have seven streaming subscriptions. The accessibility problem is real and it's distorting who gets seen.
Pluribus was RIGHT THERE. The Academy literally had a better option sitting in front of them and just handed the trophy to the same shelf. That's not recognition, that's habit.
honestly the most telling thing is that the cast all seem genuinely proud of the work and not just doing press obligations. you can tell the difference after a while in these interviews and something real is happening on that set.
I'm watching it. My wife is watching it. My neighbor who hates TV is watching it. Your sample size is the problem not the show's reach.
okay but can we talk about the production design because nobody ever talks about the production design. that show looks like it smells like a hospital. that is an achievement.
back to back emmys literally just means you were the best show twice. what is confusing about this
ngl i hadn't even heard of Pluribus before this conversation started and i watched like every Emmy nominated show this year so maybe the problem isnt the Academy
the show is fine. it is well made. i am not weeping in the streets over its victory lap. some of us just think television is allowed to be fine.
i mean breaking bad won four in a row and nobody called that a rut so why does The Pitt get the skeptical eyebrow at two
Unpopular opinion but Noah Wyle winning lead actor is actually the more defensible win than the drama series award. He's been carrying that show on his back and the Emmy voters finally noticed.
award shows are just vibes in a tuxedo anyway so this whole debate is kind of beside the point but sure lets have it
Is it wrong to choose not to have children just because you don't want to?
110 comments
Would you still eat meat if you had to kill the animal yourself?
109 comments
Are dating apps genuinely harder for men or for women?
108 comments
Would you tell your closest friends exactly how much money you make?
108 comments