Emmy

The panel’s lack of enthusiasm for this category expresses itself in a drastic falloff after the first three contenders, as different from each other as TV movies can be. “Rebel Ridge,” the intense actioner with a should-be star-making performance by Aaron Pierre, is at No. 1. Tied for second are the fourth “Bridget Jones” movie, rom-com “Mad About the Boy,” and “Mountainhead,” which Lorraine Ali calls a “billionaire satire.”

“We all gripe about this category every year,” acknowledges Tracy Brown, “but I think the toughest thing … is the range of projects it encompasses, from the more blockbuster-skewing ‘Rebel Ridge’ to the more firmly indie ‘Am I OK?’. And we all need to be OK with that.”

Kristen Baldwin sums up the frustration on the part of some panelists: “Suggestion: Change the name of this category to Nontheatrical Movies. The concept of a ‘TV Movie,’ as we once knew it, is dead.”

Still, Matt Roush sees something to celebrate at the summit, saying “Mountainhead” “feels like a front-runner on pedigree alone,” citing its writing and direction by ‘Succession’s’ Jesse Armstrong, and its starry cast. “This darkest of farces is also frighteningly timely.”

1. “Rebel Ridge”
2. (tie) “Mountainhead”
2. (tie) “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy”
4. “Out of My Mind”
5. “The Gorge”
6. “G20”
7. “Am I OK?”

Los Angeles Times

Lorraine Ali

1. “Mountainhead”

2. “Rebel Ridge”

3. “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy”

4. (tie) “G20”

4. (tie) “The Gorge”

“Starring Steve Carell, Jason Schwartzman, Cory Michael Smith and Ramy Youssef, the billionaire satire ‘Mountainhead’ slid in just under the eligibility wire. Peacock’s ‘Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy’ is the fourth film in the rom–com saga starring Renée Zellweger and packs the most name recognition.”

Entertainment Weekly

Kristen Baldwin

1. “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy”

2. “Mountainhead”

3. “Rebel Ridge”

4. “Out of My Mind”

5. “Am I OK?”

“Suggestion: Change the name of this category to Nontheatrical Movies. The concept of a ‘TV Movie,’ as we once knew it, is dead.”

Los Angeles Times

Tracy Brown

1. “Rebel Ridge”

2. “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy”

3. “Mountainhead”

4. “The Gorge”

5. “Am I OK?””

“We all gripe about this category every year, but I think the toughest thing about the TV movie race in the time of streaming is the range of projects it encompasses, from the more blockbuster-skewing ‘Rebel Ridge’ to the more firmly indie ‘Am I OK?’ And we all need to be OK with that.”

Shadow and Act

Trey Mangum

1. “Rebel Ridge”

2. “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy”

3. “Mountainhead”

4. “G20”

5. “The Gorge”

“‘Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy’ getting an Emmy nod would seem justified, since it didn’t get a theatrical run in the U.S. It appears to be a lock — just like ‘Mountainhead,’ which is battling ‘Rebel Ridge’ to be at the top.”

TV Guide

Matt Roush

1. “Mountainhead”

2. “Out of My Mind”

3. “Rebel Ridge”

4. “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy”

5. “Am I OK?”

“In a traditionally meh field, HBO’s late-May entry ‘Mountainhead’ feels like a front-runner on pedigree alone: written and directed by ‘Succession’s’ Jesse Armstrong, about a gathering of toxic tech titans including Steve Carell, Jason Schwartzman, Ramy Youssef and Cory Michael Smith. This darkest of farces is also frighteningly timely.”

Los Angeles Times

Glenn Whipp

1. “Rebel Ridge”

2. “Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy”

3. “Out of My Mind”

4. “Mountainhead”

5. “The Gorge”

“For the first time in what feels like decades, you could make an argument that the TV movie contenders are at least as good as the limited series. I don’t know about you, but I’d rewatch the latest ‘Bridget Jones’ movie twice before ever dipping into ‘Disclaimer’ again.”

Every year, Emmy prognosticators weigh the chances of TV’s newcomers. But what about newcomers that are also old-timers?

Whether you prefer to call them remakes, revivals or reboots, reimaginations of beloved movies and TV shows are all the rage: Think of CBS’ “Matlock,” which swapped in Academy Award winner Kathy Bates for Andy Griffith as a charming lawyer who gets things done in the legal system; Peacock’s “Bel-Air,” which turned a multicam sitcom into a drama; or HBO’s “Perry Mason,” which was less about the courtroom than Mason as private investigator.

When it comes to awards season, though, reboots aren’t such a hot commodity. Max’s “Gossip Girl,” Paramount+’s “Frasier” and ABC’s “The Wonder Years” came and went with no wins, and continuations like NBC’s “Law & Order” and “Will & Grace,” Fox’s “The X-Files” and CBS’ “Murphy Brown” have generally not received the same love from voters as their original runs.

Not all reboots fizzle at the Emmys, though. Here are six examples of rethinks that not only brought back beloved series from the graveyard but made them award-worthy all over again.

‘Shōgun’ (2024-present)

Emmy wins: 18

Anna Sawai in “Shōgun.”

(Kurt Iswarienko / FX)

With 26 nominations and an astounding 18 wins, the premiere season of “Shōgun” is the first Japanese-language series to take home an Emmy for drama series. In addition to the top prize, the adaptation of James Clavell’s 1975 historical novel won awards for stars Hiroyuki Sanada (lead actor, drama) and Anna Sawai (lead actress, drama) plus a raft of below-the-line Emmys. The original miniseries’ take on Clavell’s story of colonialism and war in medieval Japan didn’t do so badly, either — in 1980 it scored 14 nominations and won three Primetime Emmys, including one for limited series.

‘Queer Eye’ (2018-present)

Emmy wins: 11

“Queer Eye” cast members Antoni Porowski, left, Tan France, Jeremiah Brent, Jonathan Van Ness and Karamo Brown.

(Netflix)

The fixer-upper series featuring five gay men zhuzhing up the lives of more staid straights was a phenomenon when it originally aired between 2003 and 2007 but was comparatively overlooked by the Emmys, picking up a win for reality program in 2004 plus three other nominations. Meanwhile, Netflix’s reboot — featuring makeovers of more than just straight guys, and a less snarky sensibility — has earned 11 Emmys to date, including six wins for structured reality program (2018, 2019-23).

‘Westworld’ (2016-22)

Emmy wins: 9

Thandiwe Newton and Aaron Paul in Season 4 of “Westworld.”

(John Johnson / HBO)

“Westworld” stands out on this list because it reimagines a feature film, not an earlier TV series — in this case, the 1973 movie written and directed by Michael Crichton and starring Yul Brynner. The film scored no top-line awards or nominations, but the HBO reboot, which premiered in 2016, landed 54 Emmy nominations and nine wins across its four-season run, including a 2018 trophy for Thandiwe Newton (lead actress, drama) for her performance as the series’ cunning madam, Maeve Millay.

‘One Day at a Time’ (2017-20)

Emmy wins: 3

Justina Machado, left, and Isabella Gomez in “One Day at a Time.”

(Ali Goldstein / Netflix)

The story of a single mom raising her growing daughters earned three nominations during its original run from 1975 to 1984, including one in 1982 for star Bonnie Franklin (lead actress, comedy); director Alan Rafkin and supporting actor Pat Harrington won. The Netflix reboot, which recast the Romanos as the Cuban American Alvarez family and shifted the action from Indianapolis to L.A., was nominated for each of its four seasons and won two, as well as a special Television Academy Honor.

‘Battlestar Galactica’ (2004-09)

Emmy wins: 3

Michael Hogan as Col. Saul Tigh, left, Edward James Olmos as Adm. William Adama, Mary McDonnell as Laura Roslin and Jamie Bamber as Lee “Apollo” Adama in the TV movie “Battlestar Galactica: Razor,” part of the popular Sci-Fi Channel franchise.

(Carole Segal / Sci-Fi Channel)

In the decades between the original 1978-79 “Battlestar” and the full-throttle reboot, science-fiction storytelling on the small screen advanced at lightspeed, which may have helped the latter last far longer than the original. The story of human refugees fleeing space colonies destroyed by Cylon robots (who were now on their tail) earned the original series three nominations and two Emmy wins in below-the line categories. The reboot ended up with three Emmy wins of its own from 19 nominations, though all the wins were for special effects and sound editing. (A 2003 backdoor pilot became a three-hour miniseries and also earned three Emmy nominations.)

‘The Conners’ (2018-25)

Emmy wins: 1

Maya Lynne Robinson, left, Jayden Rey, Michael Fishman, John Goodman, Laurie Metcalf, Sara Gilbert, Emma Kenney, Ames McNamara and Lecy Goranson in “The Conners.”

(Robert Trachtenberg / ABC)

Let’s call this one an unplanned reboot. After ABC canceled its 2018 “Roseanne” revival due to star Roseanne Barr’s public flameout, the quick-thinking network teed up “The Conners,” which follows the titular family after its matriarch’s untimely death. Falling somewhere between a traditional revival and a full-on reboot, “The Conners” hasn’t matched the original “Roseanne’s” Emmy haul, which included 25 nominations and four wins (three for Laurie Metcalf and one for Barr). But the series, which recently concluded its own seven-season run, has performed solidly with voters, earning six nominations and one win in 2021 for editing in a comedy series.

When you gather the creative minds behind six of the most entertaining and acclaimed shows of 2025, the conversation is destined for narrative intrigue. The writers who took part in this year’s Envelope Roundtable touched on social media blackouts, release strategies, runaway production, even the wonder of Bravo’s “The Valley.” How’s that for a twist?

This panelists are Debora Cahn of “The Diplomat,” about an American foreign service officer thrust into a thorny web of geopolitics; R. Scott Gemmill of “The Pitt,” which focuses on front-line healthcare workers inside a Pittsburgh hospital during a single 15-hour shift; Lauren LeFranc of “The Penguin,” a reimagining of the Batman villain Oswald Cobblepot as a rising Gotham City kingpin, Oz Cobb; Craig Mazin of “The Last Of Us,” an adaptation of the popular video game series about survivors of an apocalyptic pandemic; Seth Rogen of “The Studio,” a chronicle of the film industry’s mercenary challenges as seen through the eyes of a newly appointed studio chief; and Jen Statsky of “Hacks,” about an aging comic’s complicated relationship with her outspoken mentee.

Read on for excerpts from our discussion.

The 2025 Writers Roundtable: Lauren LeFranc, left, Jen Statsky, Craig Mazin, Seth Rogen, Debora Cahn and R. Scott Gemmill.

Lauren, you’re making a series that is tethered to source material that’s really beloved by fans. I’m curious what the conversations are like with DC, or “The Batman” director Matt Reeves, when your series has to fit into a larger canon.

LeFranc: I knew where Oz ended in “The Batman.” I knew my job was to arc him to rise to power and achieve a certain level of power by the end. Outside of that, I was given carte blanche and I could just play. And that’s the most exciting thing to me. We both were in agreement that this should be a character study of this man. I love digging into the psychology of characters.

So many people were like, “Do you feel pressure? What’s this like for you?” And I was like, “Am I numb as a human?” I don’t feel that kind of pressure. I feel pressure to tell a great story and to write interesting, engaging characters that are surprising and to kind of surprise myself. I’m not the first type of person you would think who would get an opportunity to write a guy like Oz, necessarily, and to write into this type of world. I think there’s been a lot of crime dramas and a lot of genre shows or features that don’t have the lens that I have on a man like that. So I took that seriously. And I also really wanted to pepper the world with really interesting, complicated women as well. I felt like, in some of these genres, sometimes those characters weren’t as fully formed.

Craig Mazin of “The Last of Us.”

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Craig, you know what it’s like working with source material, and we knew the fate of fan-favorite character Joel, who dies in Part 2 of the video game. Tell me about your experience of the death of Joel in the video game — playing it — and how that informed what you wanted to see out of Season 2 and where exactly it would fall.

Mazin: I was upset when it happened, but I wasn’t upset at the game. It was, narratively, the right thing to do. If you make a story that is about moral outcomes and the consequences of our behavior, and somebody goes through a hospital and murders a whole lot of people, and kind of dooms the world to be stuck in this terrible place, and takes away the one hope they have of getting out of it, yeah, there should be a consequence. If there’s no consequence or even a mild consequence, then it’s a bit neutered, isn’t it? It made sense to me and it made sense that if we were going to tell the story, that was the story we were going to tell. Sometimes people do ask me, “Was there any part of you that was like, ‘Hey, let’s not have Joel die?’” No. That would be the craziest thing of all time.

How quick were you watching the real-time reaction from fans?

Mazin: I don’t do that.

Rogen: But how do you get validation? How do you know to feel good?

Statsky: Can you teach me not to look?

Mazin: I think I’m looking for validation. Really what I’m looking for is to repeat abusive behavior toward me — that’s what my therapist says. For all of our shows, millions and millions and millions of people are watching these around the world. And if 10,000 people on Twitter come at you for something, that is a negligible number relative to the size of the audience, but it sure doesn’t feel [like it]. So I made a choice. The downside is I do miss the applause. Who among us doesn’t love applause? I’ve just had to give that feeling up to not feel the bad feelings.

Seth Rogen of “The Studio.”

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

With a show like “The Studio” or “Hacks,” does it feel cathartic to lampoon the industry or show the ridiculous nature of the business and the decision–makers sometimes?

Rogen: What’s funny is, as we were writing the show, we never used the word “satire.” To us, the goal was not to make fun of any element of the industry — honestly, it’s mostly based on myself and my own fears, as someone who’s in charge of things, that I’m making the wrong choices, and that I’m prioritizing the wrong things, and that I’m convincing my idols to work with me and then I’m letting them down, and I’m championing the wrong ideas. That I’m making things worse and that I’m giving notes to people that are detrimental rather than exciting, and that I’m mitigating my own risks rather than trying to bolster creative swings. That was the startling moment where I realized I personally relate in my darkest moments to a studio executive more than I do a creative person in the industry in many ways. And that was kind of the moment where I was like, “Oh, that’s a funny thing to explore.”

Jen Statsky of “Hacks.”

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Statsky: But it’s interesting when you put it like that, because of the part of showrunning where you become management and you’re much more on that business side [of] running a show. We’re executives in many ways too.

Mazin: I have a question for you. How do you deal with the fact that — as we kind of move through things as writers, we are always comrades, we are colleagues of people. When you become a showrunner, you don’t notice it at first, but there is this barrier between you and everybody, and one day you wake up and realize, “Oh, it’s because they look at me and see someone who can fire them, who can elevate them, who can change their lives for better or worse.” And you start to feel very, very lonely all of a sudden.

Statsky: Oh, there’s a group text you’re not on.

Mazin: And it’s about you.

Statsky: It’s about you. It’s such a hard part of this job that I struggle with very much because as writers, we are empathetic to others, and we are observing the world, and we are trying to commune with people as best as possible. But then you do this thing and you’re like, “I like writing, I like writing, I like writing.” And they’re like, “Great. Now here’s a 350-person company to manage and you become a boss.” I struggle with it a lot, the thinking of people’s feelings, thinking of people’s emotions, wanting to be in touch with them, but then also, at the end of the day, having to sometimes make really difficult management-type decisions that affect people’s livelihood. I find it very challenging. I need your therapist for that as well.

Debora Cahn of “The Diplomat.”

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Debora, you have a character, a female vice president, who’s been doing the bidding of an older president whose capabilities have been called into question, and spoiler alert, she becomes president. The season launched a week or so before the 2024 presidential election. What was that like? And how is it writing a political drama now versus when you were working on “The West Wing”?

Cahn: Back in “The West Wing” days, we would have people come in, people who worked in the field, and we would say, “What are you worried about that we don’t know to worry about yet?” And that was a pretty good barometer for getting an interesting story that was likely to still be topical in a year. That’s all you want, really, is to not be completely lapped by the news when you’re trying to tell a story that’s not going to go to air for a year. Now, we’re released from any boundaries of any kind. There’s nothing that we can do that’s more absurd than what’s happening. Suddenly, we’re doing a documentary, or we’re doing a balm for what you wish government was like or what you vaguely remember it was like. But we’re trying to stay in the headspace of, “What is the foreign policy community going to be thinking about in the next two years?” and trying to find something that will continue to feel relevant. But more and more it’s like, “What are the conflicts that sane people have with each other in this field? What happens when you can look at two people and you feel like they both have good values and they are kind to children? What do they fight about?”

R. Scott Gemmill of “The Pitt.”

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Let’s talk about release strategies. There’s the traditional, week-to-week model and the more modern, all-at-once model. There’s a mix of both in the marketplace. Scott, with “The Pitt,” you could just see the way people rallied around every week to see what happened next. What do you like about the weekly release?

Gemmill: I’ve only ever done that. This is my first streaming show, and we are doing it in a traditional drop a week. So I’ve never had a show that was bingeable. I don’t know any other way. At one point, they were going to release three episodes at once, but they only released two [at the start]. I don’t have a dog in that fight. I think my show, just because of the nature of it, would be very hard to binge.

Rogen: As someone who’s been bingeing it, I can attest to that. [To Cahn] Yours comes out all at once.

Cahn: It does. I don’t love that. It’s not what I would choose. I think Netflix offers a lot of other pluses. [It’s] got a big audience all over the world and that’s really nice. But I came up in broadcast television, and the idea that you’ve created this thing and it’s a story that you’ve experienced over time, and then people are like two days and done, it just —

Mazin: It’s weird.

Cahn: And it changes the way that you write.

Mazin: Over the last few years, what’s happening is, for shows that are coming out week by week, people will now save up three at a time. So they don’t want to watch week after week. There’s this weird accordion thing going on, and I don’t know where this is going. I don’t think any of us do. I’m a little nervous about the week by week. I am just hoping that it remains.

I thought for sure one day Netflix would go, “Why are we doing this?” Because I really didn’t understand. I still don’t understand.

Cahn: I have this question every three months.

Rogen: They don’t have an answer.

Cahn: It works for them.

Gemmill: Wonder why they complain about grind. Because it’s not there. Well, it’s because you put it all out at once.

Mazin: But then what I’m worried about is that they’re right. I’m just wondering if people are starting to lose their patience.

Statsky: Attention span. I think they are. I’ve even noticed, because we used to drop two a week. In this season for “Hacks,” we’ve done one a week. I saw a couple tweets where people were like, “Why are the episodes shorter this year?” I was like, “Well, they’re not. You used to watch two.” But I do think the one-a-week model, because now people are so trained [to binge] — like you’re saying, the attention span, it’s scary. I don’t think people want to watch like that anymore.

Rogen: I produced “The Boys,” and we actually went from them all coming out at once to weekly. And it did not affect the viewership in any way, shape or form was what we were told. What it did affect, that we could just see, was it sustained cultural impact. People talked about it for three months instead of three weeks of incredibly intense chatter. It just occupied more space in people’s heads, which I think was beneficial to the show.

Cahn: When they’re coming out one a week, you can repeat things that you can’t when they’re coming out all together. You have to look at them in terms of, did they each have the same rhythm? Are they each really featuring the same characters and storylines? You have to think about it in terms of, “If people do three at a time, what’s their experience going to be?” It’s terrible.

The talk of the town is runaway production and how to stop it. Scott, “The Pitt” is set in Pittsburgh and you did film exteriors there, but principal production happened on the Warner Bros. lot. Talk about why that was important for you.

Gemmill: The show could have been shot in Moose Jaw. But it was important to bring the work here, so we fought really hard to get the California tax credit. The most important part of my job besides writing producible scripts that are on time is to keep my show on the air as long as possible, to keep everyone employed as long as possible. And that’s the thing I like the best about it. This is the first show that Noah [Wyle]’s done since he left “ER” that’s shot in Los Angeles. It’s a shame. There’s more production now, but when we first were at Warner Bros. for this, it was a ghost town. It’s so sad because I’ve been in the business for 40 years and still get excited when I go on a lot. And to see them become unused just because it’s cheaper to shoot somewhere else … and there’s so many talented people here, and it’s hard on their families if you have to go to Albuquerque for six months. I don’t ever want to leave the stage again.

Mazin: We did our postproduction on the Warner Bros. lot, but we shoot in Canada. And I love Canada. But yeah, of course, I’d love to be home. I like doing postproduction here. I’ll take what I get. The financial realities are pretty stark, that’s the problem. If you are making a smaller show, the gap is not massive. If you’re making a larger show, every percentage becomes a bigger amount of money and also represents a larger amount of people to employ. But what’s good is it seems like they’re starting to get their act together in Sacramento. I do worry sometimes it’s a little bit too late, because the rest of the world seems to be in an arms race to see how many incentives they can give to get production to go there.

I’m hoping that at least we can start to move the needle a bit because, listen, that Warner Bros. lot, when I was a kid starting out, I would go on that lot, I would see the little “ER” backlot with the diner and all of it. And I was like, “That’s on TV. It’s here.” And now I walk around the Warner Bros. lot and it’s just a single tram full of tourists and no one else. And it’s so, so sad.

Lauren LeFranc of “The Penguin.”

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

LeFranc: It’s really heartbreaking. You used to be able to write what you’re doing, produce, do post all on the same lot. You had a family that you were able to form, and you could mentor writers. I would not be able to be a showrunner if not for all the people who came before me who mentored me, and I could walk to set, produce my own episode, and then I can walk to post. It’s so hard now where you’re asking writers, especially if networks aren’t paying for writers to go to set, “Can you pay for yourself to fly to New York?” It just makes it so hard to be able to educate people in the way that I feel like I was privileged enough to be educated. What are we going to do about that?

Gemmill: Mistakes get made. The best part about the whole business is it’s collaborative. But when you’re separated by thousands of miles, sometimes there’s a disconnect.

Before we wrap, please tell me what you’re watching. Jen, we were talking about “The Valley” earlier.

Rogen: Oh, I watch “The Valley” too. It’s amazing. Do you watch “The Valley” aftershow? It’s almost as good as “The Valley.”

Statsky: I’m really worried about Jax.

Rogen: We watch reality television. I see the blank looks on everybody’s face.

Statsky: We’re in comedy.

Mazin: I can’t believe how scared I was when you were talking, and then how good I felt when you’re like, “It’s a reality show.”

Statsky: So, you know “Vanderpump Rules”?

Mazin: Ish.

Statsky: It’s an offshoot.

Rogen: Which is an offshoot of —

Statsky: “Real Housewives.”

Mazin: This is an echo of an echo. Go on.

Statsky: Yes, it’s an echo of an echo of garbage.

Rogen: But it’s so good.

Statsky: But it is the worst indictment of heterosexual marriage I’ve ever seen.

Rogen: Yes, it really is.

Mazin: Oh, so incidentally, the San Fernando Valley is what it’s [about]? It’s about Valley Village.

Statsky: Valley Village. It’s the couples that have moved to the Valley and are having children and —

Rogen: And they are all in very bad places in their lives. It’s amazing.

Statsky: You think [in] reality shows most people are in bad places. That’s sadly what people want to watch. These people are in particularly bad places.

Rogen: And the show seems to be compounding it, I think.

Statsky: Yeah, weirdly, being on a reality show is not helping their problem.

Rogen: I find that I watch reality TV because when I watch all of your shows, I find them intellectually challenging. They make me self-conscious, or they make me inspired or something, which is not how I want to feel necessarily after a long day at work just watching something. And so reality TV makes me feel none of those things. It in no way reminds me of what I’ve done all day.

Mazin: If you make me dissociate, I’m watching.

Statsky: You’re going to love it. But once you start watching, Jax owns a bar in Studio City. We can all go. We can reunite.

Mazin: I’ve gone to that bar.

Rogen: You been to Jax’s?

Mazin: Yes, I’ve been to that bar.

Statsky: Wait, hold on. But everyone else in that bar was there because they watched the reality show. Why were you there?

LeFranc: Out of context, I’m so invested in all this.

Rogen: You’ve got to watch it. … Nothing I will ever make is as good as “The Valley.”

Drama

Billy Bob Thornton reflects on life in the tabloid spotlight with Angelina Jolie, Jason Isaacs discusses the ‘shocking’ scrutiny of ‘The White Lotus’ cast and more tales from the Envelope Drama Roundtable. READ HERE

Comedy

Nathan Lane recalls the Friars Club Roast from hell, Kate Hudson opens up about needing to fight for roles beyond the rom-com and more tales from The Envelope Comedy Roundtable. READ HERE

Limited Series / TV Movie

Elizabeth Banks explains why comedy is harder than drama, Brian Tyree Henry recalls being mistaken for his characters and more tales from our limited series / TV movie Roundtable. READ HERE

Writers

Writers from six of the year’s most entertaining and acclaimed TV series open up about runaway production, the binge model and tuning out (or into) social media. READ HERE

“Hacks” won the comedy series Emmy last year on the strength of a campaign that proclaimed: Vote for us! We’re actually a comedy (unlike, you know, “The Bear”).

So what happens this year when the show stopped being funny?

I’m Glenn Whipp, columnist for the Los Angeles Times and host of The Envelope newsletter. There’s not much to laugh about these days, so let’s pick our spots and consider the TV series vying for television’s top award.

‘Hacks’ Season 4 leaves room for a new winner

Let me just say at the outset that I enjoy “Hacks.” And like everyone else on the planet, I adore Jean Smart and appreciate that Lucia Aniello, Paul W. Downs and Jen Statsky created a role worthy of her talents. Comparing notes with Smart on the best sad sing-along songs is a memory I’ll always treasure, and even inspired me for a time to dip back into listening to “love songs on the Coast.”

At its essence, “Hacks” is a love story between Smart’s stand-up legend Deborah Vance and Ava Daniels (Hannah Einbinder), the young writer who helped Deborah reinvent her career. They come from different generations and possess distinct comic sensibilities. They fight, hurt each other, separate and ultimately reunite after realizing that they’re better together. They get each other. Or at least, Ava gets Deborah. And that’s enough because Deborah is the star and she doesn’t really need to bother understanding Ava’s Gen Z peculiarities. She can just roll her eyes.

Their mutual dependence is believable enough. They both live for work. So much so that at the end of “Hacks’” third season, Ava has blackmailed Deborah, an act that lands her the head writer job that Deborah had promised to give her on her late-night talk show. Ava was but the learner, now she’s the master. Well played, Dark Lady of the Sith.

It was, as our old friend Jeff Probst would say, an epic blindside, and you can understand why this current season would begin with bitter acrimony between the two women, a situation so toxic that the network brought in a human resources rep to keep them from harming each other.

The animosity wasn’t fun to watch. The tone was shrill and off-putting. Was there a joke that landed in the season’s first half? I don’t remember one, but maybe that’s because I was curled up in a fetal position watching the plot unfold.

At least amid the drama of “The Bear,” I could get some some inspiration for a good set of kitchen knives.

Julianne Nicholson’s “Dance Mom” was a bright spot of “Hacks” Season 4.

(Max)

Of course, Deborah and Ava got back together, which was a relief because that HR lady was annoying. The season’s penultimate episode was ridiculous, but in all the best ways, surprising and emotionally satisfying. Helen Hunt finally scored a big moment. And Julianne Nicholson showed some moves as Dance Mom that I never imagined her possessing. Get that character to rehab and into Season 5.

Yes, “Hacks” can still entertain. Even the anticlimactic final episode gave Smart the opportunity to play boozy and bored, showcasing her depth as a dramatic actor. One would think that after what transpired, Deborah would have more opportunities, even with a noncompete clause, to parlay her ethical stance into something more meaningful than a sad casino gig in Singapore. But the finale set up one final comeback — final because “Hacks” was pitched with a five-season arc. And we’re on the doorstep.

At least they won’t have to contrive to separate Ava and Deborah again.

So, by all means, nominate “Hacks” for comedy series again. I’d rather rewatch it than nod off during the tepid “Four Seasons.” And maybe since the show’s creators have known (since 2015) what the final scene will be, we’ll have a persuasive fifth season possessing the energy of a great Deborah Vance comeback.

In the meantime, keep last year’s mandate going and give the Emmy to a show that was consistently funny.

Give the Emmy to “The Studio.”

Read more coverage of the Emmy comedy race

The Television Academy first embraced Sterling K. Brown nine years ago and has kept him in a loose side hug ever since. Brown’s a contender for lead actor in a drama for his role as a Secret Service agent in “Paradise,” a Hulu thriller that reunites Brown with “This Is Us” creator Dan Fogelman.

10

Emmy nominations Brown has received across …

6

Different projects, including for narrator (“Lincoln: Divided We Stand”) and character voice-over (“Invincible”).

2

Brown’s first two wins came in back-to-back years — for supporting actor in a limited series in 2016, as prosecutor Christopher Darden in “The People v. O.J. Simpson,” and lead actor in a drama series in 2017 for his performance as Randall in NBC’s big-feelings family saga “This Is Us.”

3 x 2

Brown has received two nominations in a single year three times: 2018, 2020, 2021.

4

The Screen Actors Guild Awards also love Brown, who has won four times from 11 nominations, including …

2019

Twice in one year as part of both the winning film (“Black Panther”) and TV drama (“This Is Us”) ensembles.

1

Brown received his first Oscar nomination in 2024 for his supporting role as the hedonistic, hurting brother of Jeffrey Wright’s novelist in “American Fiction.”

“Adolescence” co-creator Stephen Graham isn’t exactly shy when it comes to praising Owen Cooper, the young actor at the center of his hit Netflix limited series.

“This may be a big thing to say, but I haven’t seen a performance [of this caliber] from someone so young since Leo [DiCaprio] in ‘What’s Eating Gilbert Grape,’” Graham tells me via Zoom. “And I say that because I love Leo and he’s a good friend. And that’s a performance beyond someone his age. It’s the same when I watch Owen.”

Not content to leave it at that, Graham later points out that he recently related a story on Graham Norton’s BBC talk show about the time he told Cooper’s mom that her son was the “next Robert De Niro.” Cooper happened to be on the show too, taking it all in, smiling shyly. And wouldn’t you know it, De Niro was there as well, sitting next to Cooper on the couch, giving him a tender pat on the knee.

So, DiCaprio, De Niro … Do you want to drop a Brando comparison to complete the trifecta? I ask.

“I can’t find enough superlatives to describe the boy,” says Graham, who also co-wrote the show and stars as his father.

Honestly, I can’t either. Apart from Noah Wyle’s heroic, beleaguered doctor in “The Pitt,” you could make the case that Cooper’s turn as Jamie, a 13-year-old accused of murdering a classmate, is the year’s best work on television. The show’s third episode, a two-hander where Jamie is interviewed and evaluated by a psychologist (Erin Doherty) at a juvenile detention facility, is an astonishing showcase, particularly when you consider that it, like all four of the series’ episodes, is shot as a continuous scene.

It also bears mentioning that “Adolescence” marks Cooper’s professional debut as an actor. He is now 15.

Cooper with Stephen Graham in “Adolescence.”

(Netflix)

It’s an extraordinary story, though you have to wonder if some Emmy voters will see it that way. The Emmys have not embraced child actors over the years, with only four teenagers winning trophies: Roxana Zal, 14 when she won for her supporting role in the 1984 TV movie “Something About Amelia”; Kristy McNichol, 15 and 17 at the time of her two supporting drama actress wins for the 1970s series “Family”; Scott Jacoby, 16, for the 1972 TV movie “That Certain Summer”; and Anthony Murphy for the 1971 British limited series “Tom Brown’s Schooldays.”

Murphy was 17 when he won and, like Cooper, had never acted professionally. And after “Tom Brown’s Schooldays,” he never acted again, pursuing painting instead and enjoying a long career in that medium.

Perhaps that explains Emmy voters’ reluctance to go all in and reward young actors. Are they in it for the long haul? Or are they going to do something crazy like go off to college and chase a more stable career, like … just about any other line of work?

With Cooper, such concerns appear to be unfounded. Since “Adolescence,” he has made a BBC comedy, “Film Club,” starring Aimee Lou Wood, and just finished playing young Heathcliff in Emerald Fennell’s upcoming adaptation of Emily Brontë’s “Wuthering Heights.”

Fennell obviously saw the tortured antihero that everyone else did in “Adolescence.”

Easy to see that now. But finding the next De Niro from a pool of 500 to 600 young actors, most of them unknowns, almost all of them around Jamie’s age, was a taller order. Graham says the casting team had considered looking for an older boy, given the demands of the role and the show’s unsettling subject matter.

“But that age is unique,” Graham says. “It’s that breaking point. Your body is changing. Your voice is changing. We needed that authenticity.”

That’s all well and good. But what was it like for Doherty, a veteran actor with many credits — including Princess Anne in “The Crown” — to take on a single-shot, 52-minute episode requiring her to parry and push and prod a young actor on his first job?

Cooper with Erin Doherty in “Adolescence.”

(Netflix)

“It was definitely the cause of most of my nerves before I met Owen,” Doherty tells me. “I was so unflinchingly aware that it is a huge ask, even for an actor who has been doing it for 40 years.”

Then she met him on the first day of rehearsal, and Doherty, who says she is obsessed with the elements, saw that Cooper was a “very earthy human being.” Grounded. Present. Real.

They rehearsed for two weeks and then spent a week shooting the episode, Monday through Friday, two takes a day. They used the last take. Probably because they felt confident they had already nailed it, Doherty says that last time through was like they were “doing it for free.”

“There was more of a playful dynamic between the two of us,” Doherty says. “We were poking each other in ways we hadn’t done before.”

As Doherty’s psychologist nudges Jamie to recognize truths about himself that he doesn’t want to acknowledge and admit that he holds certain toxic beliefs, you see Cooper shift Jamie from guarded innocence to explosive rage and then to surrendering desperation. There are a lot of showy moments, but one of the best comes shortly after the two characters meet when Jamie lets out a yawn. “Am I boring you?” she asks. Look at that self-satisfied smile on his face.

“That was the only time he did that,” Doherty says. “And Owen was probably genuinely tired. But also, I’m thinking, ‘This kid Jamie is really trying to push my buttons.’ We were really playing a cat-and-mouse game.”

With young actors, there’s sometimes the perception that the director is guiding them — which, of course, is the director’s job with any actor. But in that moment, you see Cooper using an accident and turning it into something malevolent.

“Owen has an unspoken magic,” Doherty says. “That’s nothing to do with his age. He has something that can’t be taught, and it’s always going to be with him.”

“Mountainhead,” a satirical skewering of tech oligarchs from “Succession” showrunner Jesse Armstrong, arrived this weekend, dropping on the final day of this year’s Emmy eligibility window.

I’m Glenn Whipp, columnist for the Los Angeles Times and host of The Envelope newsletter. While we’re pondering the timeline to upload a human consciousness, let’s consider “Mountainhead” and its Emmy chances.

Another year, another late-breaking HBO movie

Early on in “Mountainhead,” tech bro and Elon Musk stand-in Venis Parish (Cory Michael Smith) uses film history to put the glitches of his company’s latest AI rollout into perspective.

“The first time people saw a movie, everybody ran screaming because they thought they were gonna get hit by a train,” Venis relates, shouting out the Lumiere brothers’ 1895 film, “Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat Station.” “The answer to that was not stop the movies. The answer was: Show more movies. We’re gonna show users as much s— as possible, until everyone realizes nothing’s that f— serious. Nothing means anything, and everything’s funny and cool.”

In the meantime, though, Venis’ social media platform has given users the tools to create deepfakes so realistic they can’t be identified as bogus. Immediately, people all over the world are uploading videos of their enemies committing atrocities, inflaming centuries-old animosities. Reality has collapsed and, with it, global stability.

But for “Mountainhead’s” quartet of tech magnates, played by Smith, Steve Carell, Ramy Youssef and Jason Schwartzman, everything is just fine. As venture capitalist Randall Garrett (Carell) notes, “We have plenty of calories stockpiled. Western countries have strategic commodity reserves, canola oil, lard, frozen orange juice.”

Later, Randall asks: “Are we the Bolsheviks of a new techno world order that starts tonight?”

“Mountainhead” is in many ways scarier than the zombie apocalypse of “The Last of Us” because it feels like its premise is lurking right around the corner. Armstrong came up with the idea for the two-hour movie in November, after immersing himself in podcasts and books about Silicon Valley. He shot it in March, edited it in April and delivered it in May. It captures the DOGE era, specifically in the casual cruelty expressed by its entitled characters.

“Do you believe in other people?” Venis asks Randall. “Eight billion people as real as us?”

Randall’s reply: “Well, obviously not.”

Cory Michael Smith, left, and Steve Carell in “Mountainhead.”

(Macall Polay / HBO)

“Mountainhead” aspires more directly to comedy, but because we don’t have a history with these four deplorable men, it’s often difficult to find the humor. “Like ‘Fountainhead’ Mountainhead?” Youssef jokes to Schwartzman about the estate’s title. “Was your interior decorator Ayn Bland?” There’s a procession of put-downs like that. When they’re not roasting each other, they’re trying to boost their own agendas — in the case of the cancer-stricken Randall, it’s the quest to live forever as a disembodied consciousness.

For all its Shakespearean drama, “Succession” was wildly entertaining, more of a comedy than, yes, “The Bear.” Kendall Roy performing the rap “L to the OG” at a party honoring his father’s half-century running Waystar Royco will be the funniest two minutes of television probably forever. But half the fun came from the characters’ reactions to this transcendent moment of cringe. We were deeply invested in this world.

For all their money and power, the “Mountainhead” moguls are, like the Roy children in “Succession,” not serious people. But beyond that, “Mountainhead” doesn’t have much of anything novel to say about its subjects. As good as Smith is at channeling Musk’s alien, empathy-deficient otherness, you can come away with the same level of insight — and entertainment — by spending a few minutes watching Mike Myers on “Saturday Night Live.” I don’t need to watch a movie to know that a guy sitting on a gold toilet isn’t prioritizing anyone’s interests but his own.

“Mountainhead,” as mentioned, arrives on the last day of 2024-25 Emmy eligibility, less by design than from necessity. The paint’s still wet on this film. But this does mark the third straight season that HBO has dropped a TV movie right before the deadline. Last year, it was “The Great Lillian Hall,” starring Jessica Lange as fading Broadway legend. Two years ago, it was the excellent whistleblower thriller “Reality,” featuring a star turn from Sydney Sweeney. Both movies were blanked at the Emmys, though Kathy Bates did manage a Screen Actors Guild Awards nod for “Lillian Hall.”

Did the movies land too late for enough people see them? Perhaps. The late arrival time should mean they’d be fresh in voters’ minds when they fill out their ballots. But you have to be aware of them for that to happen.

Awareness shouldn’t be an issue with “Mountainhead.” Enough people will want to watch the new offering from the creator of “Succession,” and there’s not much else on television vying for attention right now. “Mountainhead” should score a nomination for television movie, even with the category being stronger than usual this year with audience favorites “Rebel Ridge,” the latest “Bridget Jones” movie and Scott Derrickson’s enjoyable, genre-bending “The Gorge” competing.

But actors in these TV movies are at competitive disadvantage as the Emmys lump them together with their counterparts in limited series, performers who are onscreen for a much longer time. This decade, only two TV movie actors have been nominated — Hugh Jackman (“Bad Education”) and Daniel Radcliffe (“Weird: The Al Yankovic Story”). The lead actress category, meanwhile, has been completely dominated by limited series.

Not that there are any women starring in “Mountainhead” because … tech bros. As for the men, Carell, Schwartzman, Smith and Youssef are very good at conveying delusional arrogance. I despised each and every one of their characters. If hate-voting were a thing, they’d all be nominated.

With Prime Video’s “Fallout,” HBO’s “The Righteous Gemstones” and now Season 3 of “The White Lotus” (also HBO), Walton Goggins’ fame has exploded. With his buzzy portrayal of Rick, a man obsessed with avenging his father’s death, in “Lotus,” an Emmy might finally be in the cards for the actor, a veteran of many critically beloved shows.

6

“Lotus” is the sixth Goggins show, after “The Shield,” “Justified,” “Gemstones,” “The Unicorn” and “Fallout,” to receive an …

85%

… or better aggregate Rotten Tomatoes critics’ score. Yet Goggins has never won an Emmy and has received only …

2

… nominations: supporting drama actor (2011) for his charismatic criminal Boyd in “Justified” and drama lead (2024) for bounty hunter the Ghoul on “Fallout.” It could be …

14

… his material that’s the issue. Goggins’ gritty and/or Southern-fried shows are not the kind that inspire Emmy voters’ rapture. Despite its secure place in the TV pantheon, “The Shield” drew three fewer nominations over seven seasons than …

17

… the more awards-friendly “Fallout” — a stylish, thoughtful video game adaptation often helmed by Jonathan Nolan — did in its first season. But love for “Fallout” …

44

… is a trickle compared with the tsunami of nominations for “Lotus” over its first two seasons. The show already has won …

15

… Emmys. Although …

4

… all that attention means Goggins might share this year’s drama supporting category with co-stars Jason Isaacs, Sam Nivola and Sam Rockwell. But …

3

… that does not necessarily mean splitting “Lotus” votes. Murray Bartlett won a limited series supporting Emmy for Season 1 against fellow “Lotus” actors, and Jennifer Coolidge prevailed twice in supporting categories crowded with co-stars. Indeed …

100%

… of nominated “Lotus” performers whose characters, much like Rick, faced extreme challenges have won.

There has never been a shortage of TV series that take place in Los Angeles, the longtime hub of the American television industry and its players. But the 2025 Emmy season features such a wealth of shows set and shot in and around L.A. that we couldn’t resist spotlighting how several of them use the iconic locale we call home.

‘Shrinking’

Jason Segel, left, Jessica Williams, Christa Miller and Ted McGinley in “Shrinking.”

(Apple)

The Apple TV+ comedy, which follows an interconnected group of co-workers, friends and neighbors, is set mainly in Pasadena and Altadena. Location manager David Flannery, a fifth-generation Pasadena native, notes, “So often [these cities] play for everywhere else in the world. But we want to show exactly where we are — which is just a little more specific than general L.A. — and that the characters are grounded in very real places.” These sites have included the Rose Bowl, Pasadena City Hall, Pasadena’s Central Park (featuring the landmark Castle Green building) and the South Pasadena train station. The Laird and Bishop family homes, with their adjoining backyards, may look like a set but are actually neighboring Altadena houses, both of which survived the Eaton fire.

‘Only Murders in the Building’

Martin Short, left, Selena Gomez and Steve Martin in “Only Murders in the Building.”

(Eric McCandless / Disney)

Although Hulu’s Emmy-winning comic mystery is the ultimate New York tale, its Season 4 opener sent its crime-solving lead trio to Tinseltown to pursue a movie adaptation of their popular podcast. Co-creator and showrunner John Hoffman, calling in during the show’s Season 5 shoot, says, “Last season had to start in L.A. It really kicks off a season that is specific to cinema, to moving images.” Filming took place on the classic Paramount Studios lot, at the historic Il Borghese condo building in Hancock Park and at an “ultra-glamorous, deeply L.A.” Hollywood Hills home, which served as studio exec Bev Melon’s party house.

‘Nobody Wants This’

Kristen Bell and Adam Brody in “Nobody Wants This.”

(Adam Rose / Netflix)

Creator-showrunner Erin Foster can’t imagine her Netflix rom-com about a progressive rabbi and a gentile sex podcaster set anywhere but her native Los Angeles. “You have to write what you know, and that’s what I know,” she says by phone from her West Hollywood home. “In L.A., people are following their dreams, so it says a lot about who someone is. I think the same applies to locations in a TV show: They all signal where [the characters] are in their life and who they are.” Some of these illustrative locales have included Westwood’s Sinai Temple, the Wilshire Boulevard Temple in Koreatown, the Los Feliz 3 Theatre, Calamigos Ranch in Malibu and WeHo’s Pleasure Chest sex shop.

‘The Studio’

Seth Rogen and Catherine O’Hara in “The Studio.”

(Apple)

Seth Rogen and company’s raucous creation about a beleaguered movie studio chief is rooted in firsthand experience. “Seth knows this town very, very well,” says supervising location manager Stacey Brashear. “He and [co-creator] Evan Goldberg wrote in 90% of the locations, including the [John] Lautner-designed, Midcentury Modern houses that studio executives like to collect.” Among these eye-popping sites are the Silvertop house above the Silver Lake Reservoir and the Harvey House in the Hollywood Hills. Adds Brashear, “I feel like our locations are actual characters in the show.” Among the Apple TV+ series’ many other L.A. locations: the Warner Bros. studio lot, the Smoke House Restaurant in Burbank, Lake Hollywood Park and the Sunset Strip’s Chateau Marmont.

‘Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story’

Chloë Sevigny and Javier Bardem in “Monsters: The Lyle Aand Erik Menendez Story.”

(Netflix)

This Netflix limited series revisits the 1989 murder of wealthy Beverly Hills couple José and Kitty Menendez by sons Erik and Lyle, a crime notoriously connected to Los Angeles. “It was such a period of decadence and grandeur, and Beverly Hills was kind of the poster child for that,” says production designer Matthew Flood Ferguson. “I wanted to recapture the [town’s] glamour and celebrity culture.” He also notes, of L.A.’s diverse architecture, “You can get quite a few different looks all in the same place.” These “looks” included a grand Hancock Park-area home standing in for the Mendendez mansion, Koreatown’s Wilshire Colonnade office complex, a 1970s-built Encino bank building, Beverly Hills’ Will Rogers Memorial Park and the former Sunset Strip site of Spago, restored to look as it did in its heyday.

‘Hacks’

Megan Stalter left, and Hannah Einbinder at the Americana at Brand in “Hacks.”

(Kenny Laubbacher / Max)

Unlike past seasons, in which L.A. often subbed for Las Vegas, Season 4 of “Hacks” is mostly shot and set in Los Angeles. Says Lucia Aniello, co-creator with Paul W. Downs and Jen Stasky, “Much of [the season] is getting back to the roots of L.A. comedy. It really is a love letter to Los Angeles — and to the comedy world.” Adds Downs, “The show is a lot about people outside of the industry looking in. By being in L.A., we got to really explore what that means.” Some key locations: CBS Television City, the Lenny Kravitz-designed Stanley House, the Americana at Brand and Echo Park’s Elysian Theater; the Altadena estate doubling for Deborah Vance’s Bel-Air mansion was lost in the Eaton fire.

‘Running Point’

Kate Hudson and Max Greenfield in “Running Point.”

(Katrina Marcinowski / Netflix)

Loosely based on the life of Lakers President Jeanie Buss, this Netflix comedy is “filled with a lot of L.A. DNA,” says co-creator and showrunner David Stassen. He adds that, like Buss, the show’s star, Kate Hudson, “is also part of a dynastic L.A. family. Plus, she knows Jeanie, she loves the Lakers and she grew up going to games.” Though much of the season was filmed downtown at Los Angeles Center Studios, location work included the Pacific Coast Highway south of Venice (where Cam, played by Justin Theroux, crashes his Porsche), downtown L.A.’s elegant Hotel Per La and homes in Sherman Oaks and Woodland Hills. The L.A. skyline gets quite the workout here as well.

‘Forever’

Lovie Simone in “Forever.”

(Elizabeth Morris / Netflix)

Netflix’s reimagining of Judy Blume’s 1975 novel unfolds in 2018 Los Angeles, where it evocatively explores first love between teens Justin and Keisha. Showrunner and L.A. native Mara Brock Akil considers her adaptation “a love letter to Los Angeles and to the idyllic life we’re all trying to live in this city, where dreams are not isolated to one particular neighborhood.” Key parts of the story take place around Keisha’s home in the View Park-Windsor Hills area, with the show’s many other L.A. locations including Ladera Park, St. Mary’s Academy in Inglewood, the Grove and the Original Farmers Market, Griffith Park and the Santa Monica Pier. Adds Akil, “A lot of people [in L.A.] are moving around on public transportation, which I wanted to shine a light on too.”

The race for the 2025 Emmy Awards is upon us, and your beloved Buzzpeople are back. As TV academy members prepare to cast their nomination ballots next month, our panel of six veteran television journalists, expert awards watchers all, are here to share their insights on the leading contenders — and what less-heralded shows and performers they think also deserve attention.

Click the links below to see the results of our ranked-choice poll in each of nine major categories, as well as our participants’ individual picks.

Drama

Comedy

Limited Series, TV Movie

In “A Doll’s House, Part 2,” playwright Lucas Hnath cheekily proposes an answer to a question that has haunted the theater for more than a century: Whatever happened to Nora after she walked out on her marriage at the end of Henrik Ibsen’s 1879 drama, “A Doll’s House”?

The door slam that concludes Ibsen’s play ushered in a revolution in modern drama. After Nora’s exit, anything was possible on the stages of respectable European playhouses. Conventional morality was no longer a choke hold on dramatic characters, who were allowed to set dangerous new precedents for audiences that may have been easily shocked but were by no means easily deterred.

Elizabeth Reaser and Jason Butler Harner in “A Doll’s House, Part 2” at Pasadena Playhouse.

(Jeff Lorch)

“A Doll’s House, Part 2,” which opened Sunday at Pasadena Playhouse under the direction of Jennifer Chang, is a sequel with a puckish difference. Although ostensibly set 15 years after Nora stormed out on Torvald and her three children, the play takes place in a theatrical present that has one antique-looking shoe in the late 19^th century and one whimsical sneaker in the early 21^st.

The hybrid nature of “A Doll’s House, Part 2” isn’t just reflected in the costume design. The language of the play moves freely from the declamatory to the profane, with some of its funniest moments occurring when fury impels a character to unleash some naughty modern vernacular.

More crucially, comedy and tragedy are allowed to coexist as parallel realities. Hnath has constructed “A Doll’s House, Part 2” as a modern comedy of ideas, divided into a series of confrontations in which characters get to thrash out different perspectives on their shared history.

Elizabeth Reaser in “A Doll’s House, Part 2” at Pasadena Playhouse.

(Jeff Lorch)

Chang stages the play like a courtroom drama, with a portion of the audience seated on the stage like a jury. The spare (if too dour) set by Wilson Chin, featuring the door that Nora made famous and a couple of rearranged chairs, allows for the brisk transit of testimony in a drama that lets all four characters have their say.

Nora (played with a touch too much comic affectation by Elizabeth Reaser) has become a successful author of controversial women’s books espousing radical ideas about the trap of conventional marriage. She has returned to the scene of her domestic crime out of necessity.

Torvald (portrayed with compelling inwardness by Jason Butler Harner), her stolid former husband, never filed the divorce papers. She’s now in legal jeopardy, having conducted business as an unmarried woman. And her militant feminist views have won her enemies who would like nothing more than to send her to prison.

Kahyun Kim in “A Doll’s House, Part 2” at Pasadena Playhouse.

(Jeff Lorch)

Nora needs Torvald to do what he was supposed to have done years ago: officially end their marriage. But not knowing how he might react to her reemergence, she makes arrangements to strategize privately with Anne Marie (Kimberly Scott), the old nanny who raised Nora’s children in her absence and isn’t particularly inclined to do her any favors.

After Torvald and Anne Marie both refuse to cooperate with her, Nora has no choice but to turn to her daughter, Emmy (crisply played by Kahyun Kim). Recently engaged to a young banker, Emmy has chosen the road that her mother abandoned, a distressing realization for Nora, who had hoped that her example would have inaugurated a new era of possibility for women.

Hnath works out the puzzle of Nora’s dilemma as though it were a dramatic Rubik’s Cube. The play hasn’t any ax to grind. If there’s one prevailing truth, it’s that relationships are murkier and messier than ideological arguments.

Jason Butler Harner in “A Doll’s House Part 2” at Pasadena Playhouse.

(Jeff Lorch)

Nora restates why she left her marriage and explains as best she can the reasons she stayed away from her children all these years. But her actions, however necessary, left behind a tonnage of human wreckage. “A Doll’s House, Part 2” offers a complex moral accounting. As each character’s forcefully held view is added to the ledger sheet, suspense builds over how the playwright will balance the books.

Each new production of “A Doll’s House, Part 2” works out the math in a slightly different way. The play had its world premiere at South Coast Repertory in 2017 in an elegant production that was somewhat more somber than the Broadway production that opened shortly after and earned Laurie Metcalf a well-deserved Tony for her performance.

The play found its voice through the Broadway developmental process, and Metcalf’s imprint is unmistakable in the rhythms of Nora’s whirligig monologues and bracing retorts. Metcalf is the rare actor who can lunge after comedy without sacrificing the raw poignancy of her character.

Elizabeth Reaser, left, and Kimberly Scott in “A Doll’s House, Part 2” at Pasadena Playhouse.

(Jeff Lorch)

Reaser adopts a humorous mode but it feels forced. More damagingly, it doesn’t seem as if Hnath’s Nora has evolved all that much from the skittishly coquettish wife of Ibsen’s play. The intellectual arc of “A Doll’s House, Part 2” suffers from the mincing way Reaser introduces the character, with little conviction for Nora’s feminist principles and only a superficial sense of the long, exhausting road of being born before your time.

The early moments with Scott’s Anne Marie are unsteady. Reaser’s Nora comes off as a shallow woman oblivious of her privilege, which is true but only partly so. Scott has a wonderful earthy quality, but I missed the impeccable timing of Jayne Houdyshell’s Anne Marie, who could stop the show with an anachronistic F-bomb. Chang’s staging initially seems like a work-in-progress.

The production is galvanized by the excellent performances of Harner and Kim. Harner reveals a Torvald changed by time and self-doubt. Years of solitude, sharpened by intimations of mortality, have cracked the banker’s sense of certainty. He blames Nora for the hurt he’ll never get over, but he doesn’t want to go down as the paragon of bad husbands. He too would like a chance to redeem himself, even if (as Harner’s canny performance illustrates) character is not infinitely malleable. Bad habits endure.

Kimberly Scott in “A Doll’s House, Part 2” at Pasadena Playhouse.

(Jeff Lorch)

Kim’s Emmy holds her own against Nora even as her proposed solution to her mother’s dilemma involves some questionable ethics. Nora may be disappointed that her daughter is making such conformist choices, but Emmy sees no reason why the mother she never knew should feel entitled to shape her life. The brusquely controlled way Kim’s Emmy speaks to Nora hints at the ocean of unresolved feelings between them.

The production is somewhat hampered by Anthony Tran’s cumbersome costumes and Chin’s grimly rational scenic design. Elizabeth Harper’s lighting enlivens the dull palette, but I missed the surreal notes of the South Coast Repertory and Broadway stagings. Hnath creates his own universe, and the design choices should reflect this wonderland quality to a jauntier degree.

But Chang realizes the play’s full power in the final scene between Nora and Torvald. Reaser poignantly plunges the depths of her character, as estranged husband and wife share what the last 15 years have been like for them.

“A Doll’s House” was considered in its time to be politically incendiary. Hnath’s sequel, without squelching the politics, picks up the forgotten human story of Ibsen’s indelible classic.