Apple TV’s Your Friends and Neighbors has been nominated this year in the marquee Emmy category of Outstanding Drama Series. It marks the first-ever Emmy nomination for the series, and it has been achieved in just its second season. It also made a kind of Emmy history as becoming only the second series to score the prestigious nomination without being nommed in any other category in the same season (the first was Big Love in 2009). That indicates the series, which will be heading into its third season in 2027, is becoming a word-of-mouth hit, not just with audiences but also with Television Academy voters.

It is well deserved, and creator/showrunner/writer/executive producer Jonathan Tropper joined Deadline’s Contenders Television: The Nominees Studio to talk about how it got to this point and how much might have had to do with the wild second season. Joining him was co-star Hoon Lee, who plays series star Jon Hamm’s cohort Barney Choi.

Watch the conversation below and scroll down for photos from the event.

The series sees Hamm, back in a suit a la Mad Men’s Don Draper, being fired as a hedge fund manager, dealing with a recent divorce, and trying to pick up the pieces in wealthy Westchester’s Westmont Village, where he turns to stealing from his neighbors’ homes only to discover a host of secrets and affairs hidden within those compounds. In the second season he continues the practice only to be confronted by a new neighbor (James Marsden) who threatens to expose him, an act that once again could put his whole family at risk.

“I’m not sure what it is about the second season specifically that made it catch on. I think in some cases, it’s just the fact that we came after the first season. You know, if I sat down and thought about it, second seasons are generally a little denser,” Tropper mused. “There’s more character complexity because we’ve already built the world. And so I think in the binge culture, the fact that people can sit down and watch 19 episodes as opposed to just the first nine episodes probably gave us a little more staying power. And I think it’s one of those shows that just had a wonderful word-of-mouth spread.”

RELATED: Contenders Television: The Nominees Studio – Deadline’s Complete Coverage

Indeed. And was he surprised by that single Emmy nomination? It WAS surprising and surreal. “We were in Europe, so it was the end of the day for us. We had no idea they were being announced that day and my phone just started to blow up. And, you know, I couldn’t really wrap my brain around it until I really started hearing from a lot of friends in L.A. who in real time were learning with the nomination. And then I began to realize that we were in that conversation [which] was really exciting. It’s really great,” he said.

As for his initial desire to tackle this particular world, it was something that had been on his wish list. “This is a show I really wanted to do for a long time. I just had to get to a point where people would let me make this show. Due to a handful of circumstances. I came up more on the side of television action shows, but I had been writing novels that were more set in worlds like this, and that dealt with these types of situations and journeys,” he said. “And I think I was just biding my time till somebody trusted me enough to do a show like this. I lived in Westchester for 15 years. I knew this world really well, and I know it’s really right to me for exploration, and I think it was just a combination of my own maturation and the ideas coinciding to to bring this show forward.”

Jonathan Tropper

Anthony Avellano for Deadline

Hoon Lee

Anthony Avellano for Deadline

Jonathan Tropper

Anthony Avellano for Deadline

As for the casting, and notably getting Hamm, as Andrew Cooper, to return to world later than but still in the universe of a Don Draper? “I mean having Jon Hamm in that role is interesting because you really can’t shake the specter of Don Draper. I think that follows him the minute you put him in a suit, you see. And the way I viewed it is kind of a deconstruction of that character. Or, you know, as John likes to say, you know, ‘Don Draper sold the American Dream and Andrew Cooper bought it.’ And I think we started from there,” Tropper said.

Lee is just one of a sterling cast of supporting players getting rich roles, Barney Choi being one of the buzziest. What did Lee think of the opportunity?

“I think the great appeal of it is being able to give voice to sort of all of your inner turmoil and your inner chaos,” he said. “A lot of the times I’ve been asked to play characters for Jonathan that are sort of organizers of the world or as fixers or operators, and that necessitates a kind of level-headed approach, so to be able to let fly with neuroses after neuroses and sort of allow the character to really spin out was incredibly fun for me to start to, to dabble in, And now that’s just building as the stakes go up for the entire situation, as it becomes more invested in Coop’s world, he starts to really unfurl. And that’s proven both fun but also challenging. And that challenge is always interesting. Like the general feel of the show, it’s incredibly fun to do.”

Paramount finally is getting serious in its standoff with blue state attorneys general and the Writers Guild of America over the antitrust action aimed at shattering David Ellison‘s $111 billion deal to meld Warner Bros Discovery with the home of The Godfather.

In the deepest sense of an offer they can’t refuse, make that $1.88 billion serious.

Following widely mocked leaked threats to leave California if there’s no significant settlement talks with the dug-in AGs and the scribes guild, Paramount’s legion of lawyers filed paperwork Monday seeking a $1.88 billion bond from the plaintiffs. If coughed up, the bond would help cover large swaths of the $7 million-a-day ticking fee Paramount Skydance is obliged to pay to WBD shareholders starting in a few weeks, plus other costs baked into the ParaBros agreement.

“Now that trial is scheduled for March 2027, roughly four months after the trial date proposed by Defendants, and more than half a year from now, Paramount seeks the bond to which it is statutorily entitled, the motion staes. “Each day that passes after September 30th without the merger closing, Paramount must pay roughly $7 million in ‘ticking fees’ to Warner Bros. stockholders and yet more fees to its financing sources for maintaining their commitments, and it is forestalled from realizing technology and marketing synergies, among many other transaction benefits.”

Leaning into the cost of the judicial process on corporate reality, the filing adds: “By the time trial concludes and the parties submit their final briefs, Paramount will have paid Warner Bros. shareholders an unrecoverable $1.3 billion in ticking fees alone. Delay also threatens to nullify the regulatory approvals that Defendants have already spent months securing. If the transaction remains unclosed by the end of trial, Defendants will have to take additional steps to obtain regulatory approval, once again at substantial expense. Absent security, even a complete victory on the merits would not restore a dollar of those extraordinary losses.”

“That is precisely why federal law requires plaintiffs to provide security as a condition for receiving preliminary relief such as the court-approved order.”

RELATED: Paramount CEO David Ellison Complains About “Needless Costs” Of State AGs’ Antitrust Suit As Mexico Approves Merger

Outside of court, Paramount pressed it’s perspective.

“Both the Clayton Act, the federal antitrust law upon which these suits are based, and other federal law expressly provide that plaintiffs are required to post a bond covering the potential harm from halting a transaction to litigate, so that if they lose, the injured party has a source of recovery for the damage caused,” a Paramount spokesperson told Deadline on Monday as the bond request was filed in federal court. “Here, every month of delay carries substantial and quantifiable financial consequences.”

With a March 2 trial start date on the books in front of an Oakland-based Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, Paramount could be in hock to the tune of around $1.3 billion once the parties face off.

RELATED: California AG Rob Bonta Open To Structural Remedies In Paramount-WBD Suit But Calls 30 Movies A Year An “Old, Stale Promise”

To that, even as Martínez-Olguín has signaled then that she was not sympathetic to Paramount’s arguments of economic harm if the merger is blocked beyond September 30, Team Ellison offered its rational for the big ask today.

“Paramount is seeking a bond based on the straightforward calculation of the maximum potential ticking consideration and financing costs from this litigation,” the company spokesperson added. “But these are not the only costs of delay. By virtue of what will be at least an eight-month delay in closing, there will be no integration and no ramped-up investment in content, production and creative talent by the combined company. Of course, in addition, employees of both Paramount and WBD are also harmed by the uncertainties caused by the delay.” 

RELATED: Paramount Making Deals To Theaters For 30 Films A Year Post-WBD Acquisition; Cinema United Still Anti-Merger

That aside, a bond is meant to cover costs to the defendants in the course of the litigation and granting one is at the discretion of the judge in the case. In the AG’s case against Para-WBD, she explicitly waived that security requirement, because, she wrote in a ruling granting a temporary restraining order on closing the merger, “Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Plaintiff States bring suit to enforce important public interests.”

The big boy pants bond move also comes after weeks of Paramount self-sabotage with an ineffective Ellison NYT op-ed, self-interested executive elite endorsements, planted stories about Gavin Newsom‘s POV, plus vague promises of theatrical releases, deal concessions and settlement trial balloons.

Goading California’s Rob Bonta, New York’s Letitia James and other AGs with lists of the nearly 70 countries and jurisdictions like Donald Trump‘s DOJ, the UK, the E.U., Canada, and last week Mexico that have signed off on the merger, Paramount has found friends in Christopher Nolan’s DGA and Matt Loeb’s IATASE. In the transaction backed by Big Daddy and Oracle founder Larry Ellison, David Ellison and his execs have also found themselves at the receiving end of sharp rebukes from the WGA (who joined their own suit to the AGs’ one) and Hollywood’s powerful Teamsters’ local.

Putting some more real money on the table, PSKY shares are down 24% year to date as the merger stalls and the deal hasn’t closed. More anxiety is festers as the frozen situation leaves unanswered questions of layoffs and more for the $80 billion debt a combo ParaBros will carry if the two iconic companies even do become one.

Jill Goldsmith contributed to this report

Read the Paramount Skydance’s full statement on the $1.88 billion bond request here:

“Today, Paramount requested that the court enforce the statutory requirement that the plaintiffs post a bond in connection with their pending litigation, which blocks us from closing our merger with Warner Bros. Discovery. We have satisfied all closing conditions under our merger agreement, having received regulatory clearances from 68 jurisdictions. These two lawsuits are the only barrier to closing this transaction. 

Both the Clayton Act, the federal antitrust law upon which these suits are based, and other federal law expressly provide that plaintiffs are required to post a bond covering the potential harm from halting a transaction to litigate, so that if they lose, the injured party has a source of recovery for the damage caused. Here, every month of delay carries substantial and quantifiable financial consequences.

Paramount is seeking a bond based on the straightforward calculation of the maximum potential ticking consideration and financing costs from this litigation. But these are not the only costs of delay. By virtue of what will be at least an eight-month delay in closing, there will be no integration and no ramped-up investment in content, production, and creative talent by the combined company. Of course, in addition, employees of both Paramount and WBD are also harmed by the uncertainties caused by the delay. 
 
Against the overwhelming legal and regulatory consensus of independent competition authorities around the world representing 68 jurisdictions, California and the other 11 state attorneys general have chosen to erect a roadblock at the last second that harms two media companies whose combination would enable increased competition to benefit consumers, creators, and workers, while also strengthening Hollywood.
We remain confident that plaintiffs’ case is without merit and will defend our pro-competitive transaction in court. We look forward to closing this transaction and delivering its benefits to consumers and entertainment industry workers in California, the United States and around the world.”