What do the Emmys have against “Better Call Saul,” if anything? There’s really no way to know, though it’s certainly possible to speculate. For one thing, Emmy voters may have felt they already awarded “Breaking Bad” enough for both shows, despite the fact that the two masterpieces are not the same at all. For another, much of the series’ run overlapped with that of “Succession,” a towering achievement of a series that sucked up much of the space in the drama categories of every major award show. “Succession” has such sharp, showy writing and such a stacked cast that it’s nearly impossible to compare to something as subtle and slow-burning as “Better Call Saul.” Seehorn’s and Odenkirk’s performances are perfectly controlled and their character arcs unspool slowly, with fewer big, memorable blow-up moments than “Succession” affords its ensemble.
Of course, even with a dramatic behemoth like “Succession” as its competition, there are clearly instances in which “Better Call Saul” should have won. Its precise, gorgeous direction, super-sharp editing, and career-best performances from supporting stars like Michael McKean, Jonathan Banks, and Giancarlo Esposito all deserve recognition. “Better Call Saul” also has the unique distinction of being lauded as the best prequel TV show of all time, meaning that by the time the Emmys starts setting up reunions for its next big birthday, it wouldn’t be surprising if the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences chose to honor “Better Call Saul” the same way it paid homage to shows like “Ally McBeal,” “Game of Thrones,” and “I Love Lucy” during the telecast.