Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, AbcNbc247 said:

Eric Martsolf and Stacy Haiduk were really good today. Brady dumping Kristen was a long time coming and I was not disappointed with their scenes. Hoping that Brady and Chloe reunite.

I still think that Mike Manning and Lindsay Arnold deserved nominations

 

I forgot about Lindsay Arnold.  She deserves it more than some of those questionable GH younger nods. 

Mike Manning?  Not as big as a snub, but I would have him over Jeff Kober.

 

2 hours ago, FrenchBug82 said:


Mike Manning would definitely have made a lot more sense as a guest star nom than that doctor noone remembered (no offense to the actress).

LA will have other chances, I bet.

 

The guest star stuff is confusing.  Seriously, cannot remember that Dr. lol  I am not sure I get the guidelines for "guest" but I think Mike Manning had a contract?  Does that rule him out?

Edited by carolineg
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

20 minutes ago, carolineg said:

The guest star stuff is confusing.  Seriously, cannot remember that Dr. lol  I am not sure I get the guidelines for "guest" but I think Mike Manning had a contract?  Does that rule him out?

I don't think so, because I'm pretty sure Cady McClain had a contract too

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to assume, based on the mix-and-match of real guest stars, temporary recasts and short-contracters that the "guest star" criteria is probably the amount of episodes on a specific and narrow period of time.
Like someone who did twenty episodes over a month and nothing else would be a guest star whereas someone who did twenty episodes over the entire year would be considered recurring and thus probably eligible for supporting? I dunno.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FrenchBug82 said:

I'd have to assume, based on the mix-and-match of real guest stars, temporary recasts and short-contracters that the "guest star" criteria is probably the amount of episodes on a specific and narrow period of time.
Like someone who did twenty episodes over a month and nothing else would be a guest star whereas someone who did twenty episodes over the entire year would be considered recurring and thus probably eligible for supporting? I dunno.

This is all I could find on it but you appear to be correct:

"The performer’s character must have premiered in the current eligibility (calendar) year and have made a limited number of appearances in a significant role"

So that's pretty vague.  I guess it's strictly on number of appearances.  But I certainly wouldn't call Dr. whoever significant.  I would assume people like Kim Delaney, Cady McClain, and even Mike Manning would be under those appearances because they started later in 2020 even if they were more recurring than "guest".  

It's kind of a silly category honestly.  And I guess an actor can pick.  Like next year VK could submit as "guest" for her appearances as Ciara, but will probably submit younger again (if she's still eligible-I can't even understand those new rules)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, carolineg said:

This is all I could find on it but you appear to be correct:

"The performer’s character must have premiered in the current eligibility (calendar) year and have made a limited number of appearances in a significant role"

So that's pretty vague.  I guess it's strictly on number of appearances.  But I certainly wouldn't call Dr. whoever significant.  I would assume people like Kim Delaney, Cady McClain, and even Mike Manning would be under those appearances because they started later in 2020 even if they were more recurring than "guest".  

It's kind of a silly category honestly.  And I guess an actor can pick.  Like next year VK could submit as "guest" for her appearances as Ciara, but will probably submit younger again (if she's still eligible-I can't even understand those new rules)

 

 

For 2021-2022 eligibility (meaning January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021; but awards airs in 2022) you have to be 21 or younger. For 2022-2023 (meaning January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022; but awards airs in 2023) you have to be 18 or younger.

 

That's what I understood.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Errol said:

 

For 2021-2022 eligibility (meaning January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021; but awards airs in 2022) you have to be 21 or younger. For 2022-2023 (meaning January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022; but awards airs in 2023) you have to be 18 or younger.

 

That's what I understood.

 

Thanks!  I believe I did read that, but it's confusing and limiting.  So if Lindsay Arnold is 21 right now, but is 22 in September of this year I wonder if she's still eligible.  Otherwise, no one on Days is lol.  21 seems like a good cut off age.  18 seems a little young.  There isn't a ton of competition.  Time for Days to find a 16 year old Sydney and age Parker and beef up that teen scene.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, carolineg said:

And I guess an actor can pick. 

 


That's probably the variable I hadn't thought of.
It is the actors/show who pick who they submit for what category!
And just like some of the "supporting" are sometimes actually leading characters who don't want the competition of the Big Beasts in leading, I bet some of the strangest "guests" are strategic submissions by shows/actors who figured they have a better shot at "guest star" even if it stretches the spirit of the category.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, FrenchBug82 said:


That's probably the variable I hadn't thought of.
It is the actors/show who pick who they submit for what category!
And just like some of the "supporting" are sometimes actually leading characters who don't want the competition of the Big Beasts in leading, I bet some of the strangest "guests" are strategic submissions by shows/actors who figured they have a better shot at "guest star" even if it stretches the spirit of the category.

 

Yeah it has to be strategic.  I used to hate when lead actors/actresses would chose to be in the "supporting" category because they were younger and less established then the usual leads.  It seemed unfair and really stacked the supporting acting categories for years and sometimes the leading categories had actors/actresses with much smaller episode counts. 

Anyway......thread drift.....I thought today's show was good.  I liked the Brady/Kristen stuff and the Jan/Claire stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, carolineg said:

 

Thanks!  I believe I did read that, but it's confusing and limiting.  So if Lindsay Arnold is 21 right now, but is 22 in September of this year I wonder if she's still eligible.  Otherwise, no one on Days is lol.  21 seems like a good cut off age.  18 seems a little young.  There isn't a ton of competition.  Time for Days to find a 16 year old Sydney and age Parker and beef up that teen scene.

 

Based on that scenario, Lindsay would be eligible until her birthday when she turns 22. So she's fine for contention until then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly can’t be happy for any of the nominees.

 

With so many egregious snubs and so many noms going to undeserving actors, the entire thing is a farce. The Daytime Emmys are just a complete joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why is it that we now get good scenes between Brady/Kristen. This entire story has been a total albatross on the show, and yesterdays scenes were phenomenal; had we received that type of writing from the start instead of  camp and repetitiveness I would've been more inclined to watch this story play out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of me is hoping that Kristen is gone for good. All of this was too much for her and there shouldn't be any redemption arc or a happy ending with Brady. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they can’t convince Eileen to return at some point, just keep her gone, I’d say.

5 minutes ago, AbcNbc247 said:

Part of me is hoping that Kristen is gone for good. All of this was too much for her and there shouldn't be any redemption arc or a happy ending with Brady. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Faulkner said:

If they can’t convince Eileen to return at some point, just keep her gone, I’d say.

 

True.

 

I often wondered how ED would have played this storyline. 

Edited by AbcNbc247
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy