Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Daniel Avery" data-source="post: 430841" data-attributes="member: 27">I was low-key horrified that Jonathan Jackson won for....well, that fiasco he participated in with the return of Lucky Spencer.&nbsp; It seems that every year we have one winner that makes everyone go &quot;Whaaaaaa???&quot; and JJ was this year&#039;s.&nbsp; We all know that the nominees get judged by &quot;reels&quot;---collections of scenes put together by the actor (or someone on behalf of the actor), so rather than being judged on the totality of their performances the actors get judged by their &quot;best day at the office&quot;.&nbsp; From the month or so where Lucky sat around playing cards to the weeks where he went aimlessly from Liz to Laura to Sonny and back it felt like the show had no real plan for him.&nbsp; It felt like they were just running out the clock on his limited contract with &quot;Look!&nbsp; It&#039;s OG Lucky Spencer---remember him?&quot; scenes that added nothing to the narrative.&nbsp; Even the actor and EP seemed to know it was a waste of time, since he asked to leave early and the writers wrote him out easily.&nbsp; For JJ to win an Emmy for a plot arc with no point to it seems to reinforce that old idea that the judges see a name on the list that they recognize and decide to vote for him/her regardless of what they actually did in that year of material.&nbsp; It also reinforces the idea that actors can just &quot;drop by&quot; and do a few months of sub-par material, coast on &quot;nostalgia fumes&quot; and collect a quick check---or maybe even an Emmy!---while the loyal contract actors are shoved to the background.I like that all four shows got something in the acting categories so it didn&#039;t feel like a GH shut-out.&nbsp; They put a lot of effort into re-developing the &quot;Younger Actor/Actress&quot; Emmy into &quot;Emerging Talent&quot;.&nbsp; Though I understand what they were trying to do (avoid the spectacle of 24-year-old actors competing against eight-year-olds), it became a category of &quot;actors who are new to acting and to soaps&quot; versus &quot;actors new to soaps but not new to acting&quot; who have considerable non-soap resumes.&nbsp; It gives the same feeling of unfairness, just in a different way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Daniel Avery, post: 430841, member: 27"] I was low-key horrified that Jonathan Jackson won for....well, that[I] fiasco[/I] he participated in with the return of Lucky Spencer. It seems that every year we have one winner that makes everyone go "Whaaaaaa???" and JJ was this year's. We all know that the nominees get judged by "reels"---collections of scenes put together by the actor (or someone on behalf of the actor), so rather than being judged on the totality of their performances the actors get judged by their "best day at the office". From the month or so where Lucky sat around[I] playing cards[/I] to the weeks where he went aimlessly from Liz to Laura to Sonny and back it felt like the show had no real plan for him. It felt like they were just running out the clock on his limited contract with "Look! It's OG Lucky Spencer---remember him?" scenes that added nothing to the narrative. Even the actor and EP seemed to know it was a waste of time, since he asked to leave early and the writers wrote him out easily. For JJ to win an Emmy for a plot arc with no point to it seems to reinforce that old idea that the judges see a name on the list that they recognize and decide to vote for him/her regardless of what they actually did in that year of material. It also reinforces the idea that actors can just "drop by" and do a few months of sub-par material, coast on "nostalgia fumes" and collect a quick check---or maybe even an Emmy!---while the loyal contract actors are shoved to the background. I like that all four shows got something in the acting categories so it didn't feel like a GH shut-out. They put a lot of effort into re-developing the "Younger Actor/Actress" Emmy into "Emerging Talent". Though I understand what they were trying to do (avoid the spectacle of 24-year-old actors competing against eight-year-olds), it became a category of "actors who are new to acting and to soaps" versus "actors new to soaps but [I]not new to acting" [/I]who have considerable[I] [/I]non-soap resumes. It gives the same feeling of unfairness, just in a different way. [/QUOTE]

Verification

6 + 4 =