Some people, if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
Posted
With the popular vote back in play, there's great potential for a lot of "What the heck is he/she doing there?" nominees: actors who don't have a lot of award-worthy material but get in because Emmy voters rubber-stamp famous or familiar names. We saw it in the top tens over the last couple of years: Sharon Gless for "Burn Notice," Jane Alexander for "Tell Me You Love Me" (actually, Alexander deserved a nod, but you can be damn sure Emmy voters weren't watching that show), and of course the famous case of Ellen Burstyn in "Mrs. Harris."
What big names do you think might pop up, regardless of whether voters have actually watched the show? Looking at the ballot, I was struck by Max Von Sydow, who didn't have a heck of a lot to do on "The Tudors" but could definitely pick up a supporting actor nod just for being Max Von Sydow.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: 742,
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
I suppose Ed Asner could sneak in for his guest spot on CSI: NY. I highly doubt voters watch that show, and the episode itself sounds baity as hell so Boomer's probably right that he'll get in.
There's the ever persistant case for Judy Davis in Supporting Actress Comedy for "The Starter Wife". It's a weak catagory, and while I've never seen the show, I figure anythings possible.
A case could also be made for Angela Bassett on "ER". Granted, I think she more than deserves a nomination for her superb season long performance, but if she's going to get nominated, a big part of it will have to do with name recognition. If George Clooney is nominated, also for "ER", especially over the likes of Anthony Edwards and Noah Wyle, I'd say that'd be a big case of name recognition (not that it'd be that bad -- Clooney DID do a fantastic job and in it's final year, any love the show gets is okay in my book.)
Posts: 2444 | Location: MA | Registered: June 16, 2005
That's an easy one, Marcia Gay Harden and William Hurt. They were good on Damages, but I really think you can find 6 other people who were better on other shows.
That's an easy one, Marcia Gay Harden and William Hurt. They were good on Damages, but I really think you can find 6 other people who were better on other shows.
I 100% agree with this this show was solid but does not belong in the top 6, and these two actors did nothing special in my eyes. They had a good episode here and there but I can name 6 better off the top of my head in each category.
I also think that Jean Smart and Tracey Ullman could do this supporting actress comedy.
Holly Hunter and Sally Field in Lead Drama actress both solid actresses but neither deserves a nomination this year.
The Hottest Duo on TV! [img]http://www.foto-fanatics.com/products/8754.jpg[/img]
Posts: 2704 | Location: New York/Long Island at College | Registered: August 17, 2001
I really fundamentally disagree with the whole premise of this question. I really don't think actors vote that way. Name recognition may be a big deal to the general public, but to a working actor, it's not.
I truly can't conceive of a situation where someone is thinking, "Oh, they're famous, I'll check their name off."
Not that voters see everything either, but it's more a case of having heard from people you work with and other people in the industry which roles/performances are landmark.
Originally posted by MicheBel: I really fundamentally disagree with the whole premise of this question. I really don't think actors vote that way. Name recognition may be a big deal to the general public, but to a working actor, it's not.
I don't see how anyone could make this argument after what happened with Ellen Burstyn a couple years ago. LOL. Do you honestly think the voters thought Burstyn was worthy?
Not to mention the original post by 742 about Jane Alexander and Sharon Gless making the top 10 lists last year. Now, Alexander was great, but I, too, doubt enough people were actually watching that show. And Sharon Gless is good on Burn Notice, and all, but she doesn't get the kind of material to warrant making an Emmy top 10 list. Burn Notice in general just isn't that kind of show.
In reality, last year's Drama Supporting Actress top 10 list, in particular, looked like there was a lot of voting based on name recognition and not actual merit. I think it was quite a glaring example, to be honest.
That said, I can absolutely see Marcia Gay Harden making the nominee list this year because of name recognition. I could easily find 6 better nominees. But, judging on what the top 10 list looked like last year, I think Harden has a great shot.
Originally posted by LadyHathor25: I don't see how anyone could make this argument after what happened with Ellen Burstyn a couple years ago. LOL. Do you honestly think the voters thought Burstyn was worthy?
I so agree. The Ellen Burstyn's case showed us that nominations are simply based on a popularity among the voters.
quote:
That said, I can absolutely see Marcia Gay Harden making the nominee list this year because of name recognition. I could easily find 6 better nominees. But, judging on what the top 10 list looked like last year, I think Harden has a great shot.
I hope they vote for her in Supporting Actress in TV Movie/Mini-series, instead of Drama Supporting Actress. She deserves a nomination for Anna Paquin's flick, but not for "Damages".
I'd like to see Bassett make it in. But question...do you think her chances are heightened with her being the second (I think) performer on the ballot in her category? I could see her being voted for because of name recognition and because she appears so soon on the ballot.
I agree that the "Damages" actors could get in on name alone, but William Hurt would actually deserve it. He disappeared for a long stretch in the middle of the season, but in the first few episodes and then the last, he earned a spot in the supporting actor line-up.
Harden, however, despite being a phenomenal actress, was given precious little to do, save her takeover attempt in one episode. Having an actress of her caliber, there was the expectation that she would be a major player in the storylines, but it was not to be. Supporting Actress in a Drama Series is so full of amazing performances that Harden wouldn't even crack my top fifteen, let alone my top six.
One category that might end up being a big-name-a-thon is Supporting Actress in a Miniseries or a Movie. Looking through the ballot, I see Shohreh Aghdashloo, Patty Duke, Marcia Gay Harden, Patricia Heaton, Swoosie Kurtz, Bernadette Peters, Mercedes Ruehl, and Cisely Tyson. I've only seen Aghdashloo and Harden's films, and I doubt Emmy voters have seen many of them either, but I wouldn't be surprised if this category comes down to a combination of those names, picked at random, with maybe Janet McTeer thrown in because "Into the Storm" could be very popular with voters.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: 742,
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
I really fundamentally disagree with the whole premise of this question. I really don't think actors vote that way. Name recognition may be a big deal to the general public, but to a working actor, it's not.
I truly can't conceive of a situation where someone is thinking, "Oh, they're famous, I'll check their name off."
Not that voters see everything either, but it's more a case of having heard from people you work with and other people in the industry which roles/performances are landmark.
Nothing to do with their fame.
Michebel, you are twisting the logic of this question like Elisabeth Hasslbeck twists things on The View to make republicans sound good.
The point of this is to say which actor will get in because they are Diane Wiest, Sally Field, Holly Hunter, Ellen Burstyn, etc and so on and so on. We are not saying that celebrities sit down and say "Oh who is a bigger celebrity." It is easier to remember those names rather than searching through a database. People are familar with their past work so they say "hey they have been nominated for things before they must be good lets cast a vote for them again"
It leaves out the smaller lesser known people on smaller networks or pay cable networks. Yes they do FYC ads but that really benefits the big stars. It really effects the younger newer performers the most. Yet like Paulhan said it will effect the Lead Actrss Drama category the most, the most likely nominees Field, Hunter, Sedgwick, Close. Let's hope we can see some new blood like Elisabeth Moss and January Jones.
These are two relatively lesser known actresses who may be hurt by name recognition and get passed over.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: movieman6,
The Hottest Duo on TV! [img]http://www.foto-fanatics.com/products/8754.jpg[/img]
Posts: 2704 | Location: New York/Long Island at College | Registered: August 17, 2001
William Hurt, who brought "Damages" to a screeching halt every time he was on screen.
Holly Hunter- I just cringe at the show and the performance.
However, I think some great actors get flak for being nominated b/c of their name, when I think they do amazing work. Top of my list is Sally Field- I LOVE her performance as Nora Walker. However, "Brothers and Sisters" is also a case study- Field and Griffiths get nominated every year, but the equally great work of the lesser-known Matthew Rhys and Emily VanCamp is overlooked.
Posts: 832 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 03, 2003
With this system's first round, isn't everyone who gets nominated getting in on name recognition alone? I thought that people don't submit their work until after they're nominated.
Originally posted by nrlondon76: With this system's first round, isn't everyone who gets nominated getting in on name recognition alone? I thought that people don't submit their work until after they're nominated.
The question is which actors might be nominated regardless of the quality of their work. Ideally, voters should pick the people who did the best work throughout the year, but as has become clear in recent years voters often look at a well-known and well-respected name like Ellen Burstyn and vote for her without having seen the performance. That's how she ended up nominated for a fifteen-second performance in the movie "Mrs. Harris." If voters had watched the film, they would have realized she was hardly in it at all.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if ATAS threw in a bunch of decoys: fake listings for big name stars in made-up projects. If any of the fake contenders end up on someone's ballot -- and undoubtedly they would -- it would send up a red flag that that voter isn't voting in good faith and should have his or her ballot thrown out entirely.
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
Originally posted by nrlondon76: With this system's first round, isn't everyone who gets nominated getting in on name recognition alone? I thought that people don't submit their work until after they're nominated.
The question is which actors might be nominated regardless of the quality of their work. Ideally, voters should pick the people who did the best work throughout the year, but as has become clear in recent years voters often look at a well-known and well-respected name like Ellen Burstyn and vote for her without having seen the performance. That's how she ended up nominated for a fifteen-second performance in the movie "Mrs. Harris." If voters had watched the film, they would have realized she was hardly in it at all.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if ATAS threw in a bunch of decoys: fake listings for big name stars in made-up projects. If any of the fake contenders end up on someone's ballot -- and undoubtedly they would -- it would send up a red flag that that voter isn't voting in good faith and should have his or her ballot thrown out entirely.
I LOVE THAT!!!
Posts: 832 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 03, 2003
Originally posted by MicheBel: I really fundamentally disagree with the whole premise of this question. I really don't think actors vote that way. Name recognition may be a big deal to the general public, but to a working actor, it's not.
I don't see how anyone could make this argument after what happened with Ellen Burstyn a couple years ago. LOL. Do you honestly think the voters thought Burstyn was worthy?
Not to mention the original post by 742 about Jane Alexander and Sharon Gless making the top 10 lists last year. Now, Alexander was great, but I, too, doubt enough people were actually watching that show. And Sharon Gless is good on Burn Notice, and all, but she doesn't get the kind of material to warrant making an Emmy top 10 list. Burn Notice in general just isn't that kind of show.
In reality, last year's Drama Supporting Actress top 10 list, in particular, looked like there was a lot of voting based on name recognition and not actual merit. I think it was quite a glaring example, to be honest.
That said, I can absolutely see Marcia Gay Harden making the nominee list this year because of name recognition. I could easily find 6 better nominees. But, judging on what the top 10 list looked like last year, I think Harden has a great shot.
And Sharon Gless is good on Burn Notice, and all, but she doesn't get the kind of material to warrant making an Emmy top 10 list. Burn Notice in general just isn't that kind of show.
Exactly what does this statement mean? That certain shows just aren't Emmy worthy at all, wouldn't matter what an actor or actress did on that sort of show? (I'm not saying this in Gless' defense or Burn Notice's as I don't watch the show but it just comes of as an indictment of a certain "type" of show
I really do get it that some people have that attitude, that if the show isn't 1) on HBO or Showtime or 2) isn't basically a night time soap opera it's worthless in terms of Emmy contention
Most procedural shows (Cop shows, medical shows, lawyer shows) really have to swim upstream and then there gets to be one show that represents the genre and that one gets all the awards ad nauseum
