[ SECRET POST #6086 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6086 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.
[Critical Role]



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.
[Trine 5]

























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 28 secrets from Secret Submission Post #870.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like that's been a problem for a very, very long time and without a major overhaul of the Emmy voting rules, it's unlikely to change. It is kind of weird that, collectively, Emmy voters often seem to decide that once a show/actor has been nominated, they should get nominated in perpetuity. And, wow, the strings of wins for some shows and performers. Like, if it happened once in a while, that would make sense, but Emmy history is littered with them. And they are great shows or performers, but do the voters really think they are the strongest for four or five or six years in a row? (Not really counting the Variety show awards.)