Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Daniel Avery" data-source="post: 273434" data-attributes="member: 27">No one would ever admit it, but aspects you mention (actors&#039; work elsewhere, the general likeability/reputation of the actor) always factor into the judging.&nbsp; Maybe not in the front of their minds, but it&#039;s there.&nbsp; Some judges might be more familiar with the actor&#039;s other work and let that knowledge inform their opinions on the reels they&#039;re supposed to be judging independently.&nbsp; In theory, an actor might be stinking up the place all year long but have two really good performances that could be submitted.&nbsp; The judge is tasked with only judging those two reels, not allowing the rest of the year (and all the accompanying bad press/criticism) to color their opinion.&nbsp; They&#039;re also not supposed to rely on good word of mouth or reputation---that is, seeing the same actors nominated over and over should not color the judges&#039; opinions on that year&#039;s submissions.&nbsp; In both cases I think they don&#039;t quite accomplish those goals.&nbsp; You have actors who seem to get nominated every year regardless of how strong their stories or their performances are, and a fair share of actors who get habitually overlooked in favor of these serial (for lack of a better word) nominees.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Daniel Avery, post: 273434, member: 27"] No one would ever admit it, but aspects you mention (actors' work elsewhere, the general likeability/reputation of the actor) always factor into the judging. Maybe not in the front of their minds, but it's there. Some judges might be more familiar with the actor's other work and let that knowledge inform their opinions on the reels they're supposed to be judging [I]independently. [/I]In theory, an actor might be stinking up the place all year long but have two really good performances that could be submitted. The judge is tasked with only judging those two reels, not allowing the rest of the year (and all the accompanying bad press/criticism) to color their opinion. They're also not supposed to rely on [I]good[/I] word of mouth or reputation---that is, seeing the same actors nominated over and over should not color the judges' opinions on that year's submissions. In both cases I think they don't quite accomplish those goals. You have actors who seem to get nominated every year regardless of how strong their stories or their performances are, and a fair share of actors who get habitually overlooked in favor of these serial (for lack of a better word) nominees. [/QUOTE]

Verification

What month follows July?