Skin

Agree with all of the sentiments shared in the past three posts. They aren't really surprised (or at least they shouldn't be), they are just feigning shock so they don't rile up his supporters. They want to be seen as impartial in their responses, so they can be seen as "moderate" or "middle of the road". They are in essence enabling his narrative and in effect normalizing his awfulness.  

I always felt these debates were a bad idea. It's impossible to debate Trump, it's like playing chess with a pigeon, in the end it's going to knock all the pieces off the board, defecate all over the board and claim it won in the end. The public also is not moved by debates or civilized conversation anymore. Trump has consistently been supported by 40-45% of the electorate for the past 4 years. Nothing is going to change that, least of all debates. If anything the debates and the Supreme Court nominee have only increased his support. He was previously in the low 41's and now he is trending up again to 43-44%. 

On 7/14/2020 at 9:07 PM, Darn said:

I actually preferred Sabine Singh as Greenlee. Largely because Rebecca Budig had given up on even pretending to care about the material. She seemed to hate everything handed to her after Leo's death. I never understood why she stayed beyond the money.

I'm going to stick up for Budig here, there was a lot wrong with Greenlee post-Leo and I think it's obvious Rebecca and Greenlee struggled without him, but I think that's actually because the show kept trying to write her as an Erica-lite Romantic Leading actress, and that isn't what Rebecca excels in. There was a lot wrong with 2003-2004 Greenlee, and we could see that with the Juan Pablo and Carlos arcs but I disagree that Budig herself was the problem or that she was phoning it in, she had pretty dynamic performances with the Jackson is her father reveal and her surrogacy exit storyline. Her tearing into Minshew and La Kane is must see television and she did a great job with those reveals and confrontation scenes selling her worth as a forceful dramatic lead actress in her own right. There was a worthy successor to Julia Barr in there somewhere but ABC wanted to put her in that lukewarm pairing with Ryan, and that was all she wrote. She had some spark with Vincent Irizarry's David as well, again showing her worth as a villainous character, but they ruined it again to put her back with Ryan. Sabine was basically a brand new character, who floundered and couldn't excel at being the bruising Greenlee so they wrote her as a misunderstood damsel in distress that Josh, David and Ryan could save and Sabine could play that, so they wrote a watered down heroine role instead. Greenlee would never ever say "my only crime was coming home". She would be embarrassed to utter those words and vie for sympathy so blatantly, nakedly and boldly. All that is to say I don't think we can question Budig's dedication to the material during her first run. Her second and third stints were more questionable. 

On 7/15/2020 at 3:26 PM, Jonathan said:

I still cannot understand RB's appeal.  Her acting is cold. 

I always felt that Greenlee was more of a Liza than an Erica. Budig was great at playing tough as nail's soap bitches and she hit that and more with Greenlee. The pairing with Leo turned that on it's head and made the despicable tender. Budig is not versatile and as such I don't think she plays well in romance without a very specific kind of male lead to bring out other sides of her. Josh for instance was able to make her funny.   

On 7/17/2020 at 6:41 AM, FrenchBug82 said:

She can't let the scene be the scene: she has to ad-lib, make it more at the risk of making it too much, draw attention to herself at the risk of disrespecting her costars. It is about her and not about her character or the story. She plays her scenes like it is a wrestling match with the other actors for who is going to "win" the scene rather than a partnership to elevate the material. That's why I liked GT better. MS is Phyllis, granted, but Phyllis was more interesting played by an actress who acts with her costars rather than at them. I dread thinking what the Jack-lookalike-rape story would have been like if MS had played it.

I remember reading an article about acting and "scene stealers", at first scene stealing is seen and understood as a practice that separates good actors from great actors, and shows some promise of the actors capability but overtime it becomes a calling card for actors not knowing the true value of creating a scene, and accomplishing great cinema. If actors are always looking to "steal" something, it takes away from the narrative which is trying to be communicated to the audience, and it comes at great cost because no value is being created for the view to invest in. Also scene stealers need something of value to "steal", so if nothing is being created that is worth value to the audience, the audience comes away feeling that the scene in question was just bad. This strikes me at what MS and the VR scene is. VR provided the "value" in the scene that MS "stole", and thus she gets credit for making her co-star look bad or less than. If she was an amazing actress the scene could have been elevated and the work itself would have been elevated from all parties in the scene.  

On 7/19/2020 at 3:07 AM, katie_9918 said:

I’m not sure why, but I never got over JJ’s Lucky treating his mother like garbage and the pleasure he took in his cruelty. I was happy to see him go because I could never like him after that. The recasts (but especially Greg Vaughan) made me not want the character to die for real in another fire and I was pissed when JJ came back only to almost immediately level another misogynistic, self-righteous nasty little diatribe at yet another woman he was supposed to care about (granted, Elizabeth deserved his anger more than Laura did, but he was still a worthless prick in those scenes just like his half-brother was).

I disagree, I always look at the scene where JJ's Lucky rips Elizabeth apart as karmic vengeance for GV's Lucky. If JJ never came back, we never would have gotten that scene because GV could have never handled anything like that. Guza would have had him crying on his hands and knees gargling glass, while he rolled on pins and needles begging for Liz's forgiveness and asking if he could watch while Jason makes love to her again, so he could be apart of their next child's conception. That was how sad Guza had made Lucky during GV's tenure. Lucky was screwed around on not only with Jason, but also Nikolas. He begged Liz to take him back, believed he was a father to Liz's child and Elizabeth refused to tell him the truth, all the while getting high off of Lucky begging her to take him back. Then she turned around and used the fact that Lucky was a recovering drug addict as an excuse not to tell him the truth for like a year. She basically used his addiction against him so she could keep telling him lies. It was nauseatingly disgusting. GV's Lucky was a simpering cuckold to Elizabeth and her beau of the month. JJ at least was able to give the character back some semblance of dignity after Elizabeth's treatment toward him for the better part of 6 years. JJ coming back to the role just for those scenes alone, was well worth kicking GV off contract.  

Ugh. I never liked Dante. 

On 7/27/2020 at 2:30 PM, Jonathan said:

Simone Torres on All My Children.

Too true. 

That's very true about Austin. I don't know what that means though because he was still able to be apart of a flagship super couple. 

On 7/25/2020 at 6:35 AM, prefab1 said:

However, some of these characters are needed to counterbalance the other male leads on a show. Yes, Y&R's Paul might be vanilla, but he's a refreshing change from the other men in his age range (Jack, Victor, Michael), who are all posturing d***heads. And Doug Davidson is very good in scenes where he has to be emotionally vulnerable. Now that TPTB at Y&R have demoted him to recurring status, they seem to be giving more of those scenes to Peter Bergman, who I find laughably bad and unsympathetic, even when he's blubbering away.

 

Now, Paul's insta-son, Steve Burton's character Dylan: that dude had the personality of a piece of aluminum siding. He'd be a good contender for this list. 

The recent redefinition of the term makes me wonder if there is overlap in poor writing conditions and a poor actor. I completely would have thought Y&R's Paul fit, but mostly because I just can't remember a time when he had an interesting story. Same for Devon and Neil. Contrast to other characters be damned. 

On 7/25/2020 at 9:24 PM, Graham said:

AMC's Aidan

 

Just 7 years of doing nothing but look sexy and be part of failed romances. *7* years!

There's a bit of a difference with AMC's Aidan though. Aidan was given the works when he first started by being connected to Anna Devan's character. He started out as an interesting PI and he had a sort of romance with Kendell until he basically fell off the face of the earth and just played as a day player for 7+ years. He had a brief storyline with Sabine's Greenlee but he wound up going crazy . 

On 7/22/2020 at 7:00 PM, Gray Bunny said:

https://daytimeconfidential.com/2020/07/22/breaking-news-greg-vaughan-out-at-days-of-our-lives
 

That interview!  Yeah after I was released from my contract I decided to.... take a break. 

On 7/23/2020 at 1:41 AM, Winchester91 said:

Jensen might need a job with Supernatural ending. 

That is just too sad to think about. Man has 19 years of primetime experience and comes back to Days which is a shamble of what it was in the late 90's when he left. There's a James Franco memoir in there somewhere.  Honestly, I doubt Jensen would come back even if it was for the final episode. 

Real talk though, I can't imagine any Daytime actors coming onto Days at this point Billy Miller, Jacob Young or any other notable talent. Days basically just told every one they weren't willing to commit to a schedule, and the cast likely work for pennies on dollars as it is. That's a far cry from what Miller and Young are used to working on Bell soaps and for GH which has at least not sunken as far as Days. I can't think of many people who would want to work on the sinking ship that is Days, even if they are currently unemployed. 

18 hours ago, Franko said:

I feel like Ryan Lavery owns this thread (sorry Cam!).

Collateral damage from Rebecca Budig's Greenlee. He sparked with Gillian and Kendell, and was workable with Annie. 

19 hours ago, Darn said:

Mac Scorpio, GH: Throwing it back...listen, I love Mac. John J. York is such a warm presence to me buuuut he was Robin's glorified babysitter for much of the 90s and seems to exist now because Maxie and Robin sort of treat him like father figure and the guy is nice to look at. But he's got no umph. He's just there

Ouch! But too true. Pretty much Mac was forgotten about post Felicia. 

17 hours ago, SamandWillowFan said:

Greg Vaughan's Lucky felt like he was only there to be played for a fool.

I agree with whoever said John McBain. I don't know why all these women fought over him. 

I disagree with Greg Vaughan. He had tremendous sexual chemistry with Kelly Monaco. Had anyone but Guza been in control of the show Lucky could have worked and been a meaningful character. However Guza had a fetish where he had to make all of the men in GH cuckold's to Jason and Sonny. All the women in Port Charles needed to want them, and the rest of the men in PC were poor slobs who should have held their wives purses and thanked Sonny and Jason for giving their women a night of passion with a "real man". You could swap any script previously written with AJ in mind and replace him with Lucky during that time period, it was just that bad. Jason was just that much better than them that any woman would prefer him. 

The character of Lucky got some vengeance once JJ resumed the role, which I am thankful of - GV's Lucky under Guza's tenure was such a sad character. 

Luke and Bianca both had one thing that other needed to be fully realized soap characters. 

The biggest problem with Bianca was having a meaningful love interest. She had more or less great writing, great development and the commitment of her show but her writing was never focused on her romances. The show did everything in it's power to keep Bianca single. Frankie, Lena, Maggie, Zoey, Reese, Marissa one after another they just gave her pointless love interests that went nowhere. Marissa was probably the closest that came to a long-term love interest that was stable. They had children together and wanted to have a family together but they ended up killing her off. They loved Bianca as a character but hated her love life. 

Luke had love interests, and actually had two popular ships but the show was not interested in good story-telling for him and as time went on, they cared less and less about him as a character. So you end up with two solid couples more or less with Luke and Noah and Luke and Reid, but with piss poor story-telling, low investment and back-burner status. 

7 hours ago, All My Shadows said:

I guess what I wanted was to see, for instance, Bianca have a gay male friend that she could share experiences with, someone who also had his own story and relationships and could become an established character and represent a different side of what it means to be gay in our country. It could have been a new character who came to town already out of the closet and 100% comfortable with  his sexuality but still fighting barriers. Remember Fusion’s hot lawyer, Kenny? He would have been perfect for the part.

 

Has a soap ever had multiple LGBTQ+ characters on at the same time who weren’t romantically involved or in competition with each other? I know Passions had some crazy sht going on at one point, but what about the others.

I think those expectations unfortunately are too high for Daytime during the time period in question. You barely get that even with more niched and focused primetime shows, let alone ensemble series. I feel like you can count on one hand how many shows like that existed as major television productions/series. Most of them only on premium cable networks (Queer As Folk, The L Word, Looking, Glee and maybe Grey's Anatomy if you squint) and it's 2020. Usually in a primetime series you are lucky to get one gay character, with one love interest and then the series runs it into the ground. 

I feel like a big reason the writers don't bring on many gay characters is they feel it limits storylines. I think that's why Pratt made Reese bi-sexual, so he could create a love square between Reese, Zach, Kendell and if he could have re-written Bianca's status as a lesbian he would have. 

I've always felt that Christina was always trend following her contemporaries, so I am not surprised that she is overlooked. She always got there with a sound that wasn't especially her own or was often too late in capitalizing her material to fully embody, actualize and trademark the sound as hers.  

In her debut she copied Britney, in her sophomore effort she copied P!nk's Misunderstood and Alicia Key's Songs In a Minor, for her third album she copied Amy Winehouse, and with her fourth album she was creating material very reminiscent of Gaga. The rest of her material has been pretty generic, and not of particular note as the public forgot about her outside of her features which played to other artists strengths. She's an artist who has always in some shape or form been musically bereft, and inconsistent. 

9 hours ago, carolineg said:

I still wish that story played out with Vanessa.  It could have been great.  I am not a Jason/Brenda fan, but in 2003 I'd allow it.   And I would assume Sonny/Brenda would have been the endgame on it.  Sam was not an okay replacement lol.  She just had no history to make it a good story.  Were we supposed to be rooting for her and Jason or her and Sonny or Sonny and Carly?  I still don't know.

I would say the answer is "all of the above". If Brenda was the initial template for the story they probably wanted a replay of the Jax/Brenda/Sonny triangle, just with Jason as the third leg of this particular triangle. Thinking further it wouldn't surprise me if the writers were hoping for even more high stakes interest with the Carly/Sonny fans also adding to the mix for more interests/ratings.  They probably wanted an explosive tide of shipping to rise all their boats and interest in the show. 

25 minutes ago, BetterForgotten said:

I mean, was that supposed to be anything significant? Madonna, Whitney, Janet, Paula, and Mariah has all gotten multiple #1 singles off an album prior - and 3 of those women did it with their debut albums. 

It's significant in context of the times I think. I don't necessarily find Christina Aguilera to be especially impressive in any chart capacity, but the chart climate they are speaking about is a bit nuanced. Christina (or more accurately her label) deserve kudos for exploiting it for those feats and achievements. Christina getting back to back number one's with Genie, Come On Over and What A Girl Wants is somewhat similar to Ariana Grande getting her strings of number ones in this climate.

12 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

I don’t think he’s saying it’s special in terms of pop history. Just that she had more and bigger chart successes than her peers of that era, which might surprise people who are more familiar with the hits of Britney, BSB, and *NSYNC. As big as they were, you’d think they’d all have five or six No. 1s. (Crazy that “I Want It That Way” or “Toxic” never topped the charts. Those were as ubiquitous as they come.)

What the original tweet fails to understand are the chart methods that Christina used to employ to achieve her results was a very different strategy than Jive's Britney, Backstreet Boys and N'sync used, as BetterForgotten notes above. Jive's strategy was to limit the singles success so more people would buy the album. If they couldn't buy the single, pre Napster they had to buy the full album to access/own/listen to the material outside of radio. As such people shouldn't be looking at Billboard's Hot 100 to measure the success of those particular artists. They should be looking at their album sales, Billboard 200 chart and comparing those sales to Christina's to see how successful they were in their commercial efforts.

Christina's strategy was to flood the single market to get more #1's similar to Mariah Carey, Whitney Houston, Destiny's Child and Micheal Jackson. 

2 minutes ago, BetterForgotten said:

Britney was marketed by her label in the same way Sony marketed Celine Dion in the 90's - as an albums artist vs. being a singles artist. Jive released very few singles commercially from Britney's first two albums. In the late 90's and very early 00's, the singles market was still huge business, and at certain points, you needed to release a physical single to even chart or to chart highly on the Hot 100.

Basically this. Britney's singles never got physically released unless they were radio/airplay flops and Jive wanted to save face with a high Hot 100 peak. Jive knew that Britney could always get a sales hit so they timed releases to get her to chart higher if it benefited them. Britney only released 3 singles physically: Baby One More Time (her debut single), From The Bottom Of My Broken Heart (airplay was low) and Stronger (Airplay was low). After 2000 sales declined so significantly there was no reason to even release singles as the Hot 100 was basically just an Airplay chart until digital downloads were measured in 2005. 

I feel like there are some sparks here and there in the late 90's and early 00's of soaps trying to tell ground-breaking storylines.

You had a lot of landmark firsts with Bianca (AMC) and Luke (ATWT) as long-running LGBTQ+ characters on their soaps. I also think Guiding Light also tried to tell a story about incest with Tammy and Jonathan. I'm also thinking of eventually AMC and B&B's eventual Transgender storylines which weren't executed properly but still at least happened, and then Will's eventual coming out story on Days. 

After that though, it's hard to really remember a time when shows truly pushed their boundaries. I think after those landmark experiences in the mid oughts, and early tens you end up seeing less progressive story elements and social concepts being weaved as stories and brought into soaps for more traditional and route stakes for television. You see a lot of business take-over stories, love-triangles, cheating stories, who is the father, pregnancy stories and wash-rinse-repeat staples. I think in this way similar to BetterForgotten's post you just tend to look at what characters/stories seem to have a positive reaction, generate interest and just create storylines that "work" for those segments and portions of audiences. In this way I actually do think shipping is very important to soaps. It tells them they are doing "something" right and as such soaps just chase "super couples" as much as they can. 

As a result head writers stop trying to tell stories and you end up just hitting the same plot points again, and again. I think soaps also fall into the trap of trying to integrate plot points with character driven stories. Everyone needs to be related or connected to the show, or else it doesn't have the meaning or impact that it needs to have on the canvas and thus with the characters in the story. However if you try to push the story to hard without the character connections and character elements then you wind up shoe-horning reactions in order to fit the "plot-based" story you need to tell which doesn't feel true or authentic.

Somewhere down the line I do think soaps just stopped trying, but I also think they feel there's too much character background and history to try to tell a meaningfully well thought out story and loop everyone in based on the heavily episodic/serialized nature of story-telling on soaps. The continuity as such just makes them stop trying. 

There are several that have already been mentioned here. I think the most notables ones that I saw: 

• (All My Children) Babe and Bianca - This one felt pretty obvious and honestly would have written itself. I have to believe that there was resistance to this because (1) Bianca was already signed, sealed and delivered to Maggie at the time, and BAM was so huge (2) Babe just had too much on her plate to justify four or five love interests vying for her at any one point in time and lastly (3) Eden was already half-way out the door and wasn't willing to re-sign her contract for an additional length of time. Babe at one point was seen to be Bianca's best and closest friend, and they were so incredibly intimate together that I would have completely bought Bianca being in love with Babe at some point during the Baby-Swap story. It also helps explain and contextualize how Bianca was able to forgive Babe so quickly post switch. Later on the writers did this by having a re-casted Bianca fall in love with Babe's twin Marissa, but at that point no one cared. It could have also been that AMC just didn't want to do gay storylines. The way they treated BAM was dirty. Even through out mid 2004 they still had Maggie in go nowhere relationships with Jamie and Jonathan, while still having Bianca at arms length in a "will she or won't she phase" until McTavish just said screw it, and had them run off together to Paris in 2005.

• (Days of Our Lives) EJ and Will - EJ was always written as canonically straight and at some point they basically just pinged him back and forth between Nicole and Sami for story purposes. However I honestly believe that the EJ and Will dailies that the writers saw are what inspired the eventual storyline in 2014 with EJ cheating on Sami with Abigail. It's a similar set-up that kind of writes itself. Personally I would have been interested in seeing this this story. At least in part with Will having to confront his attraction to his mothers boyfriend/suitor, and sabotaging their relationship similar to what Sami did with Austin and Carrie. Honestly the way Massey played it I am positive he wanted to explore this as well. The idea of Will sabotaging Sami's relationship with EJ because he wants EJ is so patently Sami territory that I think it would have been great to watch.  

• (General Hospital) Nikolas and Lucky - It's often stated that Stephen Martines and Jacob Young had palpable sexual chemistry. They would have never have done this it's incest and they would have never have had a legacy character even entertain the thought, but something should have been done to reinterpret what was being shown on screen. I think we were supposed to see Lucky as being "off" due to brain washing and cheating on LIz but the vibe was always there while the characters were in the role. No wonder they were quick to recast both actors as Lucky and Nikolas.

• (One Life To Live) Any of the Ford Brothers with a Male Character - I'm surprised Ron never went here but it surprised me that none of the Ford Brothers had any experiences that were less than hetero-normative. He had three male characters (Ford, James and Nate), who were pretty much interchangeable with very bland love interests: Langston/Jessica/Tess, Starr and Danielle. It would have been interesting to see at least some variety. That being said it looks like OLTL didn't want anything LGBTQ outside of some vague B-plot with Dorian and the way they completely rushed Kish out of town as soon as possible. 

When I read this title the first couple that came to mind was JT and Victoria, I still don't understand that pairing and never got it during it's first few iterations. I guess that's why the writing team fell over themselves when they saw dailies for "Villy" not that, that specific pairing was all that great either but at least I could see a potential story there. 

21 hours ago, soapfan770 said:

Heartbreaking news indeed, feel so sad for her son and family. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/heavy.com/entertainment/2020/07/glee-cursed-deaths-suicides-list/amp/
 

By the way whatever happened to Chris Colfer? I remember he was in the AB Fab movie but after he threw his Klaine pairing under the bus he fell off the radar.

He was never really apart of the Murphy band-wagon. He had his own series of Children's books, and other projects and seems to be focusing there. To be honest he kind of seemed bothered by the typical Hollywood game that Darren Criss , seemed all to hungry to play so I'm not surprised he has kept a lower profile post-Glee.

This show to me seems cursed for all of the attention it received. Nothing good has come of it for many of the stars. It's like the anti-Mickey Mouse Club.  

The two names that came to mind immediately  to me were All My Children's Alexa Havins and of course Jonathan Jackson. But the two Carly's (Tamara and Sarah Brown) were also great submissions who were mentioned prior. 

On 6/22/2020 at 4:36 AM, Taoboi said:

Well they didn't really do anything with him...he might as well had been a ghost of a memory that kept Michael and Alex apart.

 

 

It would not surprise me if that does happen in season 3 and is apart of Alex's arc. 

Trevor St. John seems to be a CW favorite he was on Vampire Dairies, Containment and now Roswell. I wouldn't be surprised to see him pop up somewhere else soon.  

On 6/9/2020 at 12:09 PM, jam6242 said:

 

This category looks decent. I don't know what Budig and Khalil are doing in this category but I like the clips Tamara, Susan and Annika choose. 

Tamara holds a special place in my heart because I loved her Carly, I always felt her Carly was the most romantic Carly of the set. Tamara has such a beautiful style to her acting that is sensitive and almost delicate and waif like in nature. She has a very harlequin romance style about her that I feel she excels in. Great showcase here. 

Susan's clip is also great in it's honesty and sheer vulnerability, she did great with the material. 

Annika probably has the best material of the set in that it's classic Emmy-bait and she gets a chance to show case the broken-ness and desperation any mother would feel from the lost of a child. 

On 6/10/2020 at 8:44 PM, Faulkner said:

Just an embarrassing category.

 

 

Could they have chosen less compelling clips?

This is a dead category. I don't understand why Burton and Penghlis were nominated. I've never liked Thorsten Kaye's acting but I grew to like his clip towards the end. Jon and Jason's clips are classic Emmy-bait with playing multiple characters and the DID storyline. I liked Jon's tape the best as he was able to use some humor in his delivery. 

On 6/14/2020 at 7:19 PM, Faulkner said:

 

I'm starting to see the value of previous comments who said it would be better to limit the nominees to three slots per category. There are at least two performers in each category that didn't have much if any material to submit but they are nominated for pretty much every day work. Nothing special. 

Maura West lost the plot years ago. KKL's confrontation scene is lacking. Heather Tom was great as usual but the material of that clip just is not there. Ari is probably the most deserving. Finola has the most interesting clip. 

Supporting Actor is more of the same. Mark's scene is a shout fest, Bryton didn't break it with his material. Wally's scene is pedestrian. I like Chandler, James and Paul's clips the most but again there is barely anything going on in these scenes. 

On 6/14/2020 at 7:42 PM, Faulkner said:

Some of these clips are really beautiful for younger actor. I really liked Thai's scenes, I kind of wish Sasha had Katelyn's material because I feel Sasha had the performance but Katelyn has the writing. Olivia and Eden didn't need to be nominated. 

On 5/21/2020 at 7:23 PM, Faulkner said:

I never believed, even in the best of times, that younger performers should have separate categories. Let them compete with the grown folks like Anna Paquin, Tatum O’Neal, Keisha Castle-Hughes, and Quvenzhané Wallis did at the Oscars. The truly extraordinary young talents on soaps would unquestionably have shone through. Folks like Jennifer Finnigan and Sarah Brown would have absolutely been competitive with the grown folks, and we’d have fewer headscratchers like Drew Tyler Bell and True O’Brien claiming to be Emmy winners.

I don't think this would have worked backed in the early days of the Daytime Emmy's. Younger actors wouldn't even have been pre-nominated because the Emmy's were so seniority focused. They likely would have never been nominated. On the off chance they were no way would the voting bodies have voted for a 10 year old over a well-known much beloved 20 year soap veteran. You can see by viewing all of the performance categories and their nominations. I think in a lot of ways the Younger categories helped younger soap actors and actresses gain credibility and visibility to compete in the other fields once they matured out of the category. Soaps were just that crowded back then. 

What initially came to mind was Rebecca Budig's Greenlee and her endless tirades across Pine Valley. She really was the Sami of AMC. She could do a knock down drag out like no one else on that show. Erica's wedding to Jackson, the surrogacy reveal with Kendell and Ryan, or her just dragging people left and right because it was a random Wednesday. Rebecca was in her element in that role. 

On 5/25/2020 at 1:36 AM, SamandWillowFan said:

Lucky confronting Elizabeth and Nikolas about their affair.

Another epic tear down if there ever was one, with the added impact of having an amazing actor who originated the role be the one to deliver the confrontation. Jonathan Jackson coming back was worth it just for those scenes alone. Greg Vaughn wouldn't have been able to do Lucky justice in that episode. You truly felt every single sense of betrayal from him, and that confrontation with Liz was a long time coming. He took 7 years of Liz's betrayal and really laid her out to dry in those scenes. It was karma for her infidelities with both Jason and Nikolas there. 

On 1/15/2020 at 5:08 PM, Darn said:

 

Yeah! And OLTL had Jessica and Starr (unfortunately), AMC had Dixie and Bianca. To say Lily was the last ingenue is just incorrect.

Bianca came to my mind immediately when I read that soaps don't have ingenue's anymore. Granted she debuted in the 90's but she was pretty easily defined as an ingenue, Eden's performance was well received, and the character was renowned both critically, commercially, and culturally. 

On 8/9/2019 at 4:24 PM, Gray Bunny said:

The days of people getting potentially miffed seeing an ingenue like Judi Evans get a nomination over someone like Beverlee McKinsey for Lead Actress are long behind us. The categories were created to keep 15-year-olds from competing against golden-aged veterans who've been in the daytime field for 20+ years.  The Daytime Emmys are literally the only awards show that has a "younger leading actor/actress" category. 

 

They could've scrapped having a younger lead category altogether and it would've been perfectly understandable. 

Pretty much this. The Younger Actor and Actress category is interesting because it showed the perspective the Daytime Emmy's had at it's prime, and it shows the culture and elitism of Daytime at it's peak. They were very age focused (ageist?), and the Younger acting categories came precisely because they wanted the kiddies to have their own table, and not have to compete with them.

This had a side effect of creating categories that were basically the equivalent of "Veteran Lead Actress/Actor" and making the Supporting Actress/Actor category an intermediate stepping stone for more "mature" actors who aged out of the Younger actor territories. In this the only way you could win an award, was based on tenure/veteran status in the soap community. The Younger Actos categories helped to break-in and socialize new talent to the Daytime community, but there was a threshold blocker in Supporting categories because that's where they thinned out the talent of most of the daytime community. 

I think comparing this to the Grammy's is the wrong step though. The Grammy's categorization is awful. They should just use the same template as the Oscars.