Members AllAboutAngst Posted May 1, 2009 Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 I've been wondering this, whenever people talk about the best in daytime, the same names come up: Slezak, Flannery, Zimmer, Stafford, West, Grahn, Byrne, etc. but rarely if ever is Elizabeth Hubbard mentioned. That is baffling to me considering that she's a ten time Emmy nominee herself and two time Lead Actress Emmy winner and is still currently on daytime. I think she's easily just as good as Flannery, Zimmer and the rest, but why is she never mentioned? It can't be an out of sight out of mind thing because she is still very much on ATWT. She may not have a frontburner story all the time, but neither does Slezak and she's still mentioned often. What are your feelings on Hubbard? I'm curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dm. Posted May 1, 2009 Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 To those of us who don't watch ATWT, her name doesn't mean much. This was probably the second time I've heard of her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted May 1, 2009 Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 La Hubbard is fabulous and one of the best actresses to ever grace the genre. That said, the writing for Lucinda has been horrible, IMO, since Doug Marland died. Hubbard is always a joy to watch, but I think they've stripped Lucinda of a lot of her nuances over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members brimike Posted May 1, 2009 Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 This is purely my "very unpopular" opinion. And I fully expect many to disagree with me, which is cool. And I preface this by saying I love Hubbard, and think Lucinda Walsh is definitely one of the all-time great soap characters. Having said that, I never think of her as having the range that Flannery or Slezak has. Maybe it's the fault of the writing, and I'm totally willing to accept that. But for the last twenty years or so, I always feel like I'm watching the same Lucinda scene over and over again. Granted, I love that Lucinda scene. She's wonderful to watch, and definitely commanding and powerful. But Lucinda was only a very three-dimensional, well-rounded character during her first five or six years maybe - and then was relegated to this take-no-prisoners supporting player, brought on whenever somebody needed their ass kicked. Which is a lot of fun to watch, but doesn't provide the range that others have shown. I do love Lucinda though, and I do have great respect for Hubbard. She's had to endure a lot on that show... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DRW50 Posted May 1, 2009 Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 The last time I remember any big notice of Liz was when she quit in 1998 over anger at the way she was being treated and at not getting story input, then she returned in 1999 to what was supposed to be fanfare. Then she never got much of a story, and has gradually become a less important character. There was a very strong anti-veteran sentiment which I sensed during the Sheffer/Goutman years and while it's toned down now, I still don't think they care very much about Lucinda, Lisa, Bob, Kim. Sometimes I'm surprised Liz has never left again, but maybe she just couldn't stand FMB. At the time she left she made comments to the press which suggested she felt personally humiliated by the way FMB spoke about her. I think Slezak has a limited range (which is why most of her DID stories have done little for me, or her romances), but her Viki was at the center of the show for many decades. The same is true for Flannery. She IS B&B. Hubbard, even at her peak, was only one of many ensemble players on ATWT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AllAboutAngst Posted May 1, 2009 Author Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 Well that's sort of my point, I'm wondering why that is. She's been nominated several times for an Emmy (ten in fact) and she's won. She's as much the "grand dame" of ATWT as Flannery is the "grand dame" of B&B (albeit with less focus than Flanney), yet Hubbard is rarely talked about. I can definitely agree with that. It's just a shame because I think she's still an absolutely fantastic actress who is just as good as the best, but I rarely see a word said about her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted May 1, 2009 Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 I think Slezak is one of the biggest hams to ever grace daytime. Completely overrated actresses that is NOT the best living actress on daytime, nor was she ever. Unpopular opinion, I know, but I will admit that she's good, but not that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members brimike Posted May 1, 2009 Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 LOL! It's all coming out now, isn't it? That's so funny, because I've thought that more of Hubbard over the last few years than Slezak. Ah well - to each his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AllAboutAngst Posted May 1, 2009 Author Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 You know, I do agree with the bolded. Granted, it's been a while since I've really watched ATWT (a couple years in fact), but I can agree with that. Do you think that her not having the range is a result of her not having the material to show her range? I would think that it would be a cause and effect type of thing, because back when I was a faithful viewer of ATWT I felt like she did have that range. Wasn't her performance in the cancer story held in pretty high regard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MarkH Posted May 1, 2009 Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 Hubbard reportedly throws away the script. How much of the "same Lucinda scene over and over" is because she does it? She "rewrites" to make it sound like she thinks Lucinda should sound...but in the process, she works against any kind of nuance, newness, etc? Slezak is like THE multiple-Emmy winner. Surely you have respect for the Emmys that have so often named her number one??? Top in her class over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted May 1, 2009 Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 I laughed my ass off at the scenes from a few months back of Vicki destroying Victor Lord's crypt. The whole thing seemed like a damn parody to me. I found it quite humours how everyone thought this s-hit was Slezak's Emmy reel. Slezak's acting was so hammy, the dialogue was cringe-worthy, which made for a very humourous situation for me. Go 2:35 in or so: "> " type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members CSF Posted May 1, 2009 Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 I've always loved Hubbard and the character of Lucinda Walsh. I honestly never cared for Flannery or Zimmer and always thought they were overrated. When I used to watch GL, I would FF over every scene with Reva unless there was a Spaulding in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members brimike Posted May 1, 2009 Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 Oh, I think it's purely for two reasons: 1 ) ATWT likes to focus on the young 'uns, and has for awhile, and 2 ) Like MarkH said, she rewrites a lot on the set, and the producers/directors want to deal with that as little as possible. Even if Hubbard is right in what she's changing, in terms of the audience, nobody wants to deal with anybody who holds up production in these budget-crunched times. I don't think it has anything to do with talent at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AllAboutAngst Posted May 1, 2009 Author Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 Hmm, that's interesting, I never knew that. I don't know though, given Passanante's writing, I'm not so sure that I can fault her for re-writing, I can only imagine what the script looks like before she "tweaks" it It actually brings up something else that I've been curious about. It's been said that there are several actors "tweak" their scripts often (I have heard that Grahn and Strasser have a tendency to), do you think that's a good thing because the actor is trying to maintain character integrity and really who knows the character better than the actor (particularly if they have played them for years) or is it moreso detrimental and can appear as though the actor is trying to undermine the writing or change the intent of a scene? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y&RWorldTurner Posted May 1, 2009 Members Share Posted May 1, 2009 And Natalia Livingston is an Emmy winner too, your point? No, and I did admit she's an OK actress, but there's nothing special about her, and she really likes to ham it up when she can. To be honest, I think she's done her fair share of phoning it in over the past decade or so, yet no one ever calls her out on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.