2019 Emmy slate did the best it could in juggling an abundance of good options

Vulture

"Taken together, this is a picture of creative vitality," Matt Zoller Seitz says of the broadcast, cable and streaming networks vigorously competing against each other for Emmy nominations. "The staggering abundance of good TV has never been more apparent than in this year’s crop of Emmy nominations," adds Seitz. "The lineup boasts a few examples of what might be termed the Usual Suspects — though not surprising or necessarily undeserved ones — and many instances of surprising or overdue recognition. And a lot of the omissions seem less like deliberate slights than collateral damage from having approximately 90 bazillion interesting shows in production simultaneously and only a handful of slots in a given Emmys category. Peak TV is peakier than ever, and even more so than in recent years, worthy parties were bound to get left out." Seitz adds: "The omissions sting, even if you rationalize them as fallout from too many good choices. But the fact that you could build two or possibly three alternate Emmy nominations lists with all the shows and artists who didn’t get recognized speaks even more highly of a medium that just keeps finding new peaks to ascend."

ALSO:

• When They See Us stars on 16 Emmy noms: "The title came to life"
• The big lesson from this year's Emmy nominations: It helps to be working for HBO or Netflix
• Previous years had you shaking your head, but there wasn't much to complain about this year
• Does Better Call Saul have to kill off Kim Wexler for Rhea Seehorn to receive Emmy love?