Follow @DaytimeRoyalty
| Hello, soap fans -- and welcome to Daytime Royalty! For those unfamiliar, we are an uncensored community for fans and lovers of the daytime genre. We have a no-holds-barred atmosphere in regards to the shows, writers, actors etc. but we do not allow member suffering succotash in any form. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features. |
| The Offical Daytime Emmy Live Thread; Opens 6/20! Discuss NOW! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 19 2008, 02:44 PM (11,120 Views) | |
| Crazygirl | Jun 21 2008, 12:34 PM Post #401 |
![]()
|
I'm shocked that people actually took that statement seriously! To me it seemed like she was being sarcastic like she didn't expect it at all, I don't for one minute think she meant she thought they were going to win! Personally I'm not upset that GH won best show because they submitted the Metro Court stuff and I know that for a few weeks I was absolutely glued to my seat watching that and I can't remember when the last time ANY show had a sweeps period that made me do that! As for the rest of the year, not so much :shrug: I would have loved to see OLTL though win for best show because I personally think they are the best show on daytime right now, period. I have to say that the Beth Ehler and Ricky Paull Goldin stuff at the beginning made me laugh, I could just imagine how pissed off Ellen Wheeler was at her table listening to them gush (no pun intended) about working together on AMC. Guess what Ellie, treat people like shit and eventually they're going to give you some of the brown stuff right back :rockon: |
![]() |
|
| PhoenixRising05 | Jun 21 2008, 01:12 PM Post #402 |
![]()
|
I think people are upset because I think many people though that with the way the nominations and winners were decided together some felt maybe Days had a shot of at least one win. I mean, the nominations and winners were decided together and the fact that Days got a nod, let alone 4 nods, in a way came out of nowhere so I think many just felt like if they could break through with nods like that maybe they could break through with at least one win, especially with one they deserve and Melvin deserved hers far and away. I had read somewhere that the younger actor and actress categories were actually the two categories that most voters actually took the time to view the tapes because they didn't know as many in those categories. With the exception of Landon in younger actress and Hansis, Pelphrey, and McClure in younger actor, unless the voter was from that person's show or network or saw them at some point onscreen, they wouldn't know them. That is why I'm upset about Landon winning over Melvin because it seems like those reels were at least viewed by a good percentage of people and, if that was the case, Landon should be nowhere near that Emmy. Therefore, she won because of who she is. It doesn't hurt being Micheal Landon's daughter and let me just say I like Landon but if what I heard is true and people actually viewed the reels, then I guess it makes no difference whether they view them or not. Voters still vote for who they know so why bother even watching or submitting. At least with Pelphrey I can see why he won. Hell, I can see why Tognoni and St. John won and even, in a way, Cooper. Geary and Landon is lost on me. I actually thought Geary's reel was the worst acting he had ever done and he wins with it?! I mean, I know I wasn't alone in that opinion because I read the boards and most hated his reel. What puzzles me is on one hand we know most didn't view the reels but that makes you wonder how people like Nicole Forrester and Thaoo Penghlis got in because you know damn well they aren't exactly known to many voters. With Thaoo, I think people must have at least viewed some of his stuff because I can't see how else he would get in since he has submitted worst material before in past years. I would say Forrester benefited from Zimmer not being in it this year but I actually though that benefited Chappell more so I still am stunned Forrester got in. I think she deserved it but still. Unless many voters know the people at GL, it's just stunning to me and that is what I can't understand. Looking at the nods and wins, you can see some instances where at least most voters had to view the tapes, or at least view a little bit of some of the tapes, and then you see some instances where they didn't view them at all. Then you have some instances where they viewed them and some chose to stick with who they know over who deserved it. It's just one big clusterfuck which explains the nominations this year. Steve is right in that the name recognition thing has been happening for years but up to about ten years ago you could still look at most of the nods and wins and at least understand why people were up there and winning. Now, you just can't and when it's well documented in the media the problems the system has, it just makes it worse. I know awards shows will always have problems but the other awards shows do it much better and they have to view far more material then the Daytime Emmy voters. Look at how many shows submit for the Primetime Emmy's and look at how many episodes are submitted per show and per actor/actress. At least with the soaps there are only 9 soaps (right now anyway) and 3 actors/actresses per show in 6 major acting categories and then in the writing/directing/show you have two episodes to watch per show. That isn't that bad yet the voters bitch about it when other awards show voters have far more to watch. Seriously, if these voters don't want to be a part of the process, get out. Don't bother. Geary was in SOD this past week talking about how seriously he takes it being a voter and he discussed his thought process in voting and how this year's process was messed up because they were told to look for different criteria in the material. He said what used to be just looking for the best performance was no longer the case because they had to judge on such things as how the actor or actress is interpreting a scene and shit like that. They need to go back to it just being about the best performance. That is what it should be about. Why make the judging more confusing? They need to get voters who actually want to take the time to do this and care about the genre. They need to get voters who watch the shows all year so they have some idea of what is going on in the back of their mind. Preferably, go get some soap actors and actresses who are NOT working in soaps. That way you can control bias and maybe even have some soap journalists decide writing/directing/show. See how that works and I say keep the 3 actor/actress per category because it allows for more submissions. Try something like this and see how it goes. It can't get any worse. Edited by PhoenixRising05, Jun 21 2008, 01:13 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Steve Frame | Jun 21 2008, 03:49 PM Post #403 |
![]()
|
Tim you make some good points. I think the biggest thing that the Daytime Voters complain about is the time factor. And adding another person per categoery is hard. They work longer hours than their primetime counterparts and still have to learn lines when they get home every night. So it is hard for them to judge. and remember that up until the prenom system came into play nominations weren't even made off of reels at all. It was all word of mouth. Everyone's name was thrown out there - voting was done - narrowing it down to the top 5 - and then those top 4 or 5 or 6 submitted reels and they did judging by that. Then the prenom system came about and the nominations were based on reels. That is when more of them started griping because they didn't have time to view 18 folks in each category and this year it went up to 27 or 28 tapes they had look at with the extra person. And they only had a few weeks to get it done too. And when they volunteer they have no idea how their schedule is going to be. Say someone like Mathison, Minshew or someone who is on almost everyday volunteers. They have got to learn lines that night and try to watch tapes too and spend time with their families. I would be complaining too. They need to change the voting process for daytime especially. As far as the 10 year ago thing. I have to say I disagree with that. As I said I can go back all the way to the beginning and go What the Fuck at many of the nominees and wonder how in the hell they got there that year and how in the hell they won. At least 1 of Macdonald Carey and 1 of Helen Gallagher's early wins should be gone. Mary Fickett was good in 1973 in the Anti-War speech but not Best Actress of the year - no way in hell. Her award should have been in 1978 when she did the rape story, but that went to another what the fuck when Laurie Heineman won for Another World. Laurie was good but not that good. Then in 1979, Beverlee McKinsey should have won but I went What the Fuck again when Irene Dailey was announced as the winner for Best Actress. Then so many other noms have been What the fuck moments: Franc Luz & Valerie Mahaffey for The Doctors in 1980; Julius LaRosa for Another; Howard E. Rollins Jr. for Another World; Frances Reid for Best Lead Actress from Days; Uta Hagen for One Life To Live; Farley Granger for OLTL Best Actor nom (he was good but not that good); Michael Nouri for SFT (again good but it was a WTF moment); Vasili Bogazinos for Edge of Night; Sheppard Strudwick for LOL (not his finest hour); Elaine Lee for The Doctors; Melissa Lee for AMC; Don Scardino for AW; and John Stamos for General Hospital. All of these were in the first 10 to 15 years of the Emmys. Even Dame Judith Anderson was not in her finest moments the year she won a Supporting Actress nominee for Santa Barbara. I remember the year that Frances Reid was nominated for Lead Actress - the only older actress that was lead that year was Peggy McCay. Peggy was nominated for Supporting while Frances was in lead. It was a big what the fuck moment. The biggest pre-1985 What The Fuck moment was the year that Ryan's Hope won Best Writing and it featured the King Kong story. And the years 1982 to 1984 when NBC/CBS combined only got 13 nominations total in the major categories in 3 years were the biggest What the Fuck Moments ever. And only 6 of those were acting nominations. Each year of those ABC dominated the awards - placing many times ABC actors in actresses in the position of all 5 or 6 of the nominees in categories. The only non-ABC performer nominated in 1982 was Meg Mundy (The Doctors); in 1983 it was Howard E. Rollins Jr. (who had just won a Tony award and an Oscar nomination); and in 1984 it was Larry Bryggman, Terry Lester, Deidre Hall and Paul Stevens. So all the way back to the first broadcast in 1974 when it was part of a talk show, I and others have been saying WHAT THE FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!! |
![]() |
|
| ~bl~ | Jun 21 2008, 08:25 PM Post #404 |
![]()
|
At least in the past, when strange people got nominated it was based solely on name recognition. I can accept that a lot more easily than them trying to make it more legit, and than people still win on name recognition. Sometimes I feel in the past, odd people have won due to other issues..they win through the cracks so to speak. For example, there are two front runners for a particular award. They are nominated along with three others. The people who like actor A score actor B low and the people who like actor B score actor A low, so one of the other three nominees wins the award instead, who isn't seen to be a threat. I know this isn't supposed to happen, but I can see voters potentially doing that. |
![]() |
|
| PhoenixRising05 | Jun 22 2008, 12:17 AM Post #405 |
![]()
|
Good points, Steve. I guess from my perspective up to ten years ago it just didn't bother me. Maybe it was because people like Geary and Slezak were only on like win #3 or something. I just remember looking at the nods and wins back then and at least understanding them and being able to reason out why they were nominated or win. Your right that this problem has been going on but I guess when you consider how public the flaws with the voting process have gone and now when you consider all the controversy over actors and actresses going lead and supporting and then you toss in the problems with pre-nominations and how block voting has penetrated this current process now, which was supposed to be designed to prevent it and all the WTF wins and nominees it just makes everything so blatant and it's just hard to ignore. It's past the point of even trying to reason any of it out. It's just an overall mess and I wish the system got a complete overhaul and that something like the idea I proposed could come into play. I don't see it happening though. |
![]() |
|
| jcar03 | Jun 22 2008, 01:56 AM Post #406 |
![]()
|
Whats sad is that Geary pretty much admitted he didn't even think he would get nominated for what he submitted. I think he only submits himself for the show and I really hope he doesn't next year and lets his co-stars have his slot. After 24 hours I have digested and thought out some things: Younger Actor: From the clips I picked Pelphrey granted it was only the four minute thing on youtube but thats all I had for everyone so that all I based it on. Younger Actress: Not the least bit surprised. Whats will be even more annoying is when she wins again next year. Supporting Actor: I thought the best person won this but yet again based on a four minute clip. Supporting Actress: I watched GL still during what Gina submitted and remember thinking that would win her another Emmy so I wasn't suprised. Actress: Based on submissions not entirely deserved but I gave Jeanne my free pass because her speech was fun and she doesn't take herself uber serious. Now stop submitting yourself unless you have really kick-ass material. Actor: I wanted Canary to win his four minute clip was the best he had such range in those four minutes. Couldn't the Emmy's have picked a clip from Thaao's second reel? Seriously, the clown......did we hear everyone laughing? I can just image that they were thinking "oh those crazy folks at DAYS and their crazy storylines." Series: Okay, I know some people don't get the process on how the Emmy's work but I personally thought the right show won. I was able to watch all the submissions in their entirety and GH and GL had the best and I put GH over because I figured some voters would also like that they didn't submit some sort of death like ALL three of the other ones did. I know GH, GL and Y&R didn't have good years creatively BUT the Emmy's are based on that. IF OLTL had submitted what they did for Writing (The two days of Asa's funeral) they would of won this but the Prom Musical was not a good choice. Though JFP bitchy comment was unnessary. Though next year OLTL has this in the bag so far (actually if Prom Musical had happened this year and they submitted it it is far superior to the rest of the crap everyone else is putting out). About the Show: Too Rushed! I know ABC cut the third hour mostly because of the fact they got very little of the big nominations. Though it was better the the clusterfuck of a ceremony CBS put on last year. The montages were stupid. I like the music video type thing they did with clips of things that happened throughout the year. Also, ABC had announced they would be honoring GH, OLTL and Y&R for hitting big anniversaries and that didn't happen with only two hours. I would of liked more shots of soap stars during the Emmys. Why no cut to Rick Hearst during Kristoff's speech? Sherri Shepard was starting to really get on my nerves. The opening was fun but I would of liked if they tried to incorporate more shows into the opening. The tables aspect was as interesting as I though and neither were the table videos. |
![]() |
|
| Steve Frame | Jun 22 2008, 09:11 AM Post #407 |
![]()
|
What I don't get is people saying "stop submitting unless you have kick ass material" or "just stop submitting". This is the supposed to be The BEST of the year. Would it be fair for Meryl Streep to stop submitting for the Oscars just because she has won so many? Or would it have been for Katherine Hepburn to have stopped since she has the most noms ever? Or what about artists like Elton John and many others who win countless music awards? What if someone said that about all actors - if you don't have drop down kick ass material then you shouldn't submit. To me that is putting restrictions on the awards. As I have said before everyone should be given the chance to submit - hell they should be made to submit. How can you pick the best when many times the best don't even submit their name (i.e. Beverlee McKinsey many times). I just don't get that argument at all. And when is the magical cut off number. After you get 2 nominations, 3, 5, 10 - when??????? Hell Hogan Sheffer has got 4 Emmys - should be stop submitting? |
![]() |
|
| Steve Frame | Jun 22 2008, 09:17 AM Post #408 |
![]()
|
I have read rumors too that the budget was cut drastically for the Emmy production this year too. I figure before too long that either it will move to Cable or won't be seen on TV again. I remember when NBC backed out the first time in the 80's and then a couple of years later CBS didn't want the show either because it was during those God awful years when ABC was dominating much worse than what CBS is doing now. ABC couldn't fund it on their own and they didn't want to preempt their shows for it - so we didn't see it at all. I remember when they first came out they were part of the daytime talk shows. Right now ratings are down, daytime doesn't want it back, only 2 networks chip in on the funding, so I see it going bye bye to TV again soon or to somewhere like SoapNET if Frons lets that happen. |
![]() |
|
| Manny | Jun 22 2008, 10:48 AM Post #409 |
![]() ![]()
|
Ratings for the Emmy show were pathetic... like 5.4 million and 1.2 in 18-49... |
![]() |
|
| PhoenixRising05 | Jun 22 2008, 12:04 PM Post #410 |
![]()
|
I see your point Steve but I think it's the people like Geary who get on the ballot every year, sometimes for nothing and, in his case, this year with material he even claimed wasn't worthy of nomination, when there is others who should be there that bother people. I guess many are just hoping that some will pull out if they don't have the material. I mean, I can't argue with Canary being on there this year because he had good material. If you did something worthwhile, then fine. I've never really had too much of a problem with Geary being on the ballot. Sure, I personally roll my eyes thinking here we go again since he has quite a few of them but in the past you could always look at the work he submits and say he deserves it. Not at all this year. That sort of thing. I' m giving Cooper a free pass because she's long overdue for one. I know some of these people submit every year for the show's sake but they also need to know when they should submit and when they shouldn't. I can't stand Kim Zimmer but at least this year she wasn't up there and it gave actresses like Crystal Chappell and Nicole Forrester a chance. I mean, things like that. Personally, even if a category includes people who have won multiple times, I may not necessarily like it but if they submitted good material then I can at least sit back and reason it out. I can't this year for Geary and that's a problem. Let's remember what Oprah did. She got to a certain point and said she had enough and bowed out so others could win it, even though you could argue she was worthy of winning every year. Not saying anyone has to do this but I think it's a classy move and I respect her much more for it. I mean, once you get around 10 Emmy's, I think you've proven yourself so I would hope if Geary or anyone else hit that number, they would pull out. That would be too much for me to justify :laugh:. I also think it's hard to compare stars like Meryl Streep to all this because she's not nominated every year and will have fewer chances at awards because she doesn't make a film every year. She doesn't even always win. In soaps, stars like Geary and Slezak and Zimmer will have another chance because there shows will give them the material. They've proven that in the past and, hell, they already have 5-6 Emmy's anyway. Streep isn't involved every year. Primetime and film is different. There are fewer opportunities unlike soaps which are on pretty much every day all year. As for the ratings, I still think they should find a way to change the night. Friday is a killer anytime a year and summer is a killer too. I know the stars and such have to work but would it be so hard to give them one day off the day after the Emmy's? They could make it up somehow. I think all involved would be fine with it, providing their show was nominated or whatever. I think the Emmy's would benefit greatly, especially if they insist on airing in June, if they moved to like a Sunday night or something because people are home because they have work the next day. All the other major awards shows air anywhere from Sunday-Wednesday. It just makes more sense IMO. I also think the ratings stunk because while Days got more nods, ABC had very few nods and that hurt despite them winning some big awards. Plus, I don't think the show was promoted well at all. They actually promoted MVP and NS more then they did the Emmy's. |
![]() |
|
| Steve Frame | Jun 22 2008, 12:21 PM Post #411 |
![]()
|
I don't agree still at all. People were saying that about Susan Seaforth in the 70's; Macdonald Carey in the 70's; James Mitchell, elizabeth Hubbard and Susan Lucci in the 80's; and so on. It's been applied to so many and I still don't think it is right. If a person chooses to do it it is okay but still I say that it would just be another problem with the Emmy's - because again you are not choosing from the best - if everyone doesn't have a chance. |
![]() |
|
| PhoenixRising05 | Jun 22 2008, 01:54 PM Post #412 |
![]()
|
^The only problem I have with what your saying, Steve, is that many of those you mention did not win Emmy's year after year. They were nominated but did not win. It's no secret that the name recognition problem has been going on for as long as this awards show has been in play but it never use to almost guarantee you a win like it does for someone like Geary. Now he can submit mediocrity, and his reels were below that level IMO, and still win. He even admitted in SOD that his tapes weren't worthy, which tends to make me think maybe the show submitted him and that it wasn't his choice so I'm not really blaming Geary since that much isn't clear. See, for me, it wouldn't be so much about the nomination for these people if there wasn't recently such a pattern of them winning when getting the nod . Those you mentioned were nominated alot but did not win as much as Geary, Slezak, etc. Back then, a nomination may have been based on who you are but it didn't really give you a fantastic percentage to win like it does now. People pretty much expect Geary to win whenever he is nominated now. It's sad that people will be in shock now if he doesn't win. I love Geary but it's sad when he even admits his work was not deserving and he still wins. It just shows that what used to be an annoyance is now a BIG problem. Like I said, it never bothered me until the last ten years. Back in the 90's, you still had the same nods year after year but I could see why they were nominated and it wasn't the same people winning year after year. Now you have had two three-peats in younger actress in the last ten years. It's just becoming too repetitive and if they always deserved it, that's fine but they don't. It's like if they love you and know you you can submit shitting on a toilet and still win it. That never used to be the case. You could at least see one reason why someone was up there with a nod or winning. I think it's taken alot of the air out of the Emmy's and I fear that interest may never be there again. People no longer understand the rhyme or reason for a fair majority of these wins and I don't see that with many other awards shows, even if they have their flaws as well. If you see a majority of people having a hard time coming up with one reason for someone's win, then it's a problem. I'm not saying they should impose a rule or limit. I'm just wishing some would recognize when they don't have the material and, if that is the case, that they not submit or that they submit accordingly. I recognize sometimes the show submits for them but I would hope the actor or actress would discourage it or try to at least. I will say that if someone like Geary wins 10 Emmy's or more, then that is a bit much and I would hope he would pull an Oprah and just stop submitting. Otherwise, I can deal with it, providing he and others like him have the material. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree but one thing you and I and I think pretty much everyone can agree on is the fact that the Emmy's are flawed big time and something needs to be done. One other observation...I was watching clips on Youtube and did anyone notice how the audience could barely muster applause at times (and I'm not just talking about the awkwardness of Christina's Court taking their sweet ass time to get up there)? There seemed to be barely any energy and I've looked around at other boards and people believe they should ditch the tables and go back to the old format. I don't think the tables were the problem. I think people were just bored. Oh and it was in such poor taste not to have an 'In Memoriam" segment. In a year where we lost Beverley McKinsley, there should've been something. We didn't even get the tributes we were supposed to get to some of the show's big anniversaries like OLTL and Y&R. You would think they would've given us at least something for OLTL, although then that would've showed favoritism. If it were GH, Frons would've given us a 20 minute montage. Ugh. Edited by PhoenixRising05, Jun 22 2008, 01:57 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Steve Frame | Jun 22 2008, 02:41 PM Post #413 |
![]()
|
The daytime Emmy's haven't done montages in years. Even the year we lost Mary Stuart not one thing was said. Some of us talked about last year that there was nothing and other years too. It has been going on for several years now. I remember some of us commenting last year that the daytime Emmy's are the only awards show that doesn't do a Memoriam section at the awards. As to what you are saying, I wouldn't have a problem if people were just saying that Geary would stop submitting, but they are saying it about Cooper too. This was the first time the lady ever won and now she is supposed to stop submitting since she finally won one. I mean I could see your argument if that was the only thing people are sayign but they aren't. I mean we set limitations or start asking the people to step down after so many wins, you just start getting out of hand. First it's Zimmer and Geary and so on, and then people will start saying well jennifer finnigan and sarah brown and heather tom won all those Young Actress Awards and have been nominated upteen times so I just don't think you should submit anymore. it also opens up to legimitacy of the argument that some have used in the past of not voting for actors/actresses and shows who are popular with the audience or win lots of an awards. They say they are spreading the love around and giving someone else a chance to shine. So in essence they are using that to legitimize why they are not honored for their talent. They figure well they have alreayd gotten enough with the fan awards, the magazine covers and so on - so we will give the award to someone not as popular and let them shine for a change. What fans are asking some stars to do is no more than that. It is just saying well lets give someone else a chance to shine. And some are just saying they should bow out no matter what. I can't agree with that at all. If someone has the material they should submit and should be allowed to submit and not be criticized for doing so. Jeanne Cooper had the material this year - she should have been in Supporting but there we go again so should Deidre Hall, Susan Lucci, Erika Slezak and so many others. It should not be held against her when she had good material and should have been allowed to submit. Same with Kim Zimmer last year. It was awful the ribbing she took on fan boards when she was easily in the top 5 actresses of 2006 with her cancer stuff and when she tried to commit suicide. And she was lead on GL all of 2006 but soap fans called her a bitch, whore, and all kinds of names because the show submitted her for Best Actress. I just see it as wrong to ask for such when they have the material and should be considered right along with anyone else. If you say that it is right, then what many of the voters say about spreading the wealth around too is just as right. |
![]() |
|
| PhoenixRising05 | Jun 22 2008, 03:10 PM Post #414 |
![]()
|
Good points, Steve. About Cooper, had she won numerous times before, I would've been upset but since she had never won one, I'm ok with her. I didn't like her being nominated over MTS but that's another story. I'm happy she won one. I don't think she should stop submitting should she HAVE the material. I do think she is one who won't submit anymore if she doesn't though. She's very serious about her work it seems. As fir Zimmer, I said what I said about her because she opened her mouth when she shouldn't have. She could've told the show not to submit her. She knew what she said but she didn't so I can't disagree there and Zimmer is all about attention so it's hard for to me view her as an innocent. The show may have submitted her last year but I don't think she is one to put up a fight and say she shouldn't have been either. She had the material last year and I wouldn't have cared if she was nominated last year for that reason had she not opened her mouth and said she wasn't submitting again if she won that year. She won in 2006 and she never said she was just joking. She said she meant what she said at the time so that is why I was very upset with her. Edited by PhoenixRising05, Jun 22 2008, 03:19 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Mason | Jun 22 2008, 03:16 PM Post #415 |
![]()
|
The way I see it, if you have the material, there's no reason why you shouldn't submit, regardless of how many times you've won before. Yes, it gets tiring seeing the same people win year after year, but if you were the best, then you should get recognized for it.
Edited by Mason, Jun 22 2008, 03:17 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| lene | Jun 22 2008, 08:44 PM Post #416 |
![]() ![]()
|
Tony Geary said he didn't think he'd get nominated - - O H PLEASE! Then why did he submit himself? Jennifer Landon basicly said she didn't do much, but still submitted herself, because she knows she's a favorite. |
![]() |
|
| Crazygirl | Jun 22 2008, 08:55 PM Post #417 |
![]()
|
I think Tony Geary is an amazing actor when he has the material, but not last year. I really, really wanted Tyler Christopher to get the nomination and personally I think he deserved the award too, he was wonderful during the Emily dying storyline. I'm still trying to figure out what Tony did last year that was emmy worthy. |
![]() |
|
| PhoenixRising05 | Jun 22 2008, 11:01 PM Post #418 |
![]()
|
I don't think he did. I think the show did. Dee Hall was adamant in saying she wasn't submitting despite her work during John's "death." The show either convinced her to submit or submitted her. The way Geary talked in SOD next week, I doubt he submitted himself. He came right out and said that his reels weren't good enough and felt he should not have been nominated. I don't blame Geary because, in this case this year, I can't prove whether he submitted himself. If he did, that makes me upset but, if he didn't, my upset lies with the voters who voted because clearly his nod and win wasn't based on the material. I can't necessarily blame the show for submitting him because they know he has a chance at it and, while I would like the show to recognize he didn't have the work this year, I can see why they would put him in knowing his track record with winning this. Like I said, if any actor or actress or show has the material, I'm fine with them winning or getting nominated. It's not even so much about who was lead or supporting or whatever. If you were great and submitted the right stuff, I'm fine with it. However, if you don't the material and still get the nod and win because of who you are, then I get upset. I also just think once you start getting into double digit wins as far as the Emmy goes, then I think it becomes a bit too much. I don't see even Geary reaching that point but, if he or anyone else ever did, I would hope they would see it the way I do but that may be JMO. |
![]() |
|
| Steve Frame | Jun 22 2008, 11:02 PM Post #419 |
![]()
|
Tony submitted the wrong stuff, but Tony did have some great stuff during 2007. Much of the stuff around his heart attack was good - just not what he submitted. I don't remember the exact scenes but there were many scenes he had with Jane Elliot that were wonderful. They were of the variety that they could have been shown in an acting class and said this is how you do it. |
![]() |
|
| Steve Frame | Jun 22 2008, 11:04 PM Post #420 |
![]()
|
What Tim says makes me think that the show definitely submitted him and picked his reel. Tony always picks great reels - and this was not a good one for him. Esp. when he did have great work. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Y&R & B&B: News, Spoilers & Discussion · Next Topic » |












7:56 PM Jul 10