Jump to content

Did it ever annoy you that actors who were leads would put themselves in supporting


SamandWillowFan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 12
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Yeah, category fraud. I’m sure it was in deference to (or to avoid competition with) the more tenured marquee stars. Not sure if SL was still submitting throughout the 2000s. AM did get a Lead nod for Kendall in 2011 (alongside Debbi Morgan) but lost to Laura Wright.

Back in the day, it often felt like Lead vs. Supporting was more about the performer’s public/industry profile vs. how much his/her character drove that year’s story. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To this day I do not understand how Irene Dailey (Aunt Liz, AW) won Best Actress as a Lead. She was always a Supporting Character! I completely understand how Beverlee McKinsey & Victoria Wyndham canceled each other out & Irene just waltzed right through & I get it that Bev & VW went to the first place that served liquor, called for a table & to be left alone, just bring liquor & they got drunk together & shared their mutual disgust. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Susan Lucci last nomination was 2002 but not sure if she submitted 2003-2012.

Lead was for superstars and long-tenured veterans. Supporting was the holding tank for those who aged out of the younger category but were not quite at superstar level or had enough years to be considered long-tenured veterans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, that’s definitely shifted in the past decade as the soaps have dwindled and the perennials like Slezak, Zimmer, Flannery, Lucci, and Jeanne Cooper either have been largely sidelined or had their shows cancelled, retired, or died. We still have vet/star nominees like Bergman, Stafford, Maura West, and Finola Hughes, but folks like Mishael Morgan, MCE, et al. would have submitted in the Supporting categories back in the day.

Edited by Faulkner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A year earlier both Beverlee McKinsey and Victoria Wyndham lost Lead Actress to their co-star Laurie Heineman. I think there was some controversy over that win too and I wonder if that was the reason the supporting categories were introduced the following year.

IMO the younger categories were introduced in 1985 in response to the controversy over Judi Evans supporting win in 1984 (she wasn't even 20 years old and had been on GL for only one year at the time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Was that just one year apart?! I don't think I realized that. If I recall correctly people were bothered because the actress had only been in the role a very short period of time. If I'm right, that doesn't seem like a very significant issue to me. She was the first Sharlene. Later, Anna Kathryn Holbrook won an Emmy for Sharlene, too. (She was the #2.)

I have always wished I knew what scenes were on her winning reel. Of course, her story was incredible & she was so good. 

Very early on there was a move to boycott P&G & for one year they received no Emmys, presumably because the boycott was successful. It seems very strange now, the things in the distant past that really got Emmy voters riled up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Same as the Oscars. In what world was Tatum O’Neal “supporting” in Paper Moon? Timothy Hutton in Ordinary People? Viola Davis winning the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for playing the same role she won a Best Lead Actress Tony for? Or even the reverse with Olivia Colman winning Best Actress in a movie where Rachel Weisz and Emma Stone were co-leads (and competing against each other in Supporting Actress). It’s all strategy to have the best chances to win. I wish there was a more objective way for placement but politics and powerful $$$$$ voices always get in the way.

Edited by Faulkner
Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.



  • Recent Posts

    • I think they’re desperately trying to cover his awful tattoos. But anyway them being unable to style short kings properly has been a major pet peeve of mine for a while now.  I honestly don’t understand what some people expect from actors to even begin considering them for recognition. Let’s be real—awards mostly mean that an actor is respected by their peers and has some level of cultural relevance. Actual judgment on the acting itself? That’s often secondary—highly subjective and shaped by the times. I completely agree on both points. If you’re an actor or a dancer you shouldn’t get any tattoos (sorry not sorry). Tomas’ tattoos are ugly too. And regarding the couples- you’re completely right. These writers are unable to write romance.   Further comments: - Kat cannot be this dumb to keep tampering with evidence over and over again. And I’m officially not a fan of the actress—every time she’s in a scene with Leslie, she doesn’t seem intimidated at all. She plays it like comic relief, which is just too much, especially when paired with Leslie’s histrionics and over-the-top antics. Leslie is older, dangerous, and has literally been portrayed as homicidal—Kat should be at least a little scared. • I also didn’t like Kat playing damsel in distress with the hotel manager. It gave off the same weird energy as Dani with the cop. I would’ve much preferred the version Paul Raven suggested, with her sneaking in through housekeeping. • And yes, Dani again accused Hayley of faking the pregnancy—this time even specifying she might be using a pillow under her shirt. (No fake miscarriage being mentioned) I stand by my take: this is ridiculous writing. No one in the real world—except us, the chronically online soap watchers—would even think of such a conspiracy theory. Haley is no Beyoncé. • What in the world was Chelsea wearing in her hair the other day? And this whole thing with Madison is beyond cringe. Chelsea’s coming off as needy and toxic—basically like every other Dupree. • I’m glad the casino storyline is moving forward, but it’s still boring as hell. Honestly, I’d be so here for a plot twist where Vanessa and Doug take Joey out. • The direction and editing lately have been rough. Abrupt cuts, weird pacing… something just feels off overall. There’s a strange uneasiness to how it’s all coming together. • And finally: Tomas is too much of a saint. Where are the messy sluts when you need them? (Vanessa doesn’t count.)
    • Andrew sure has hard nips.
    • I was watching some August 1987 episodes and they brought back so many memories. I had some thoughts: Lisa and Jamie were so dull. Lisa was such a nothing character. It boggles my mind that so much story was centered around her in such a short amount of time. Joanna Going is a talented actress, but the material was just not there.  It was so good to see Wallingford and Mitch again. I know there was talk about Felicia a while back, but these episodes reminded me how integral Felicia was for the show.  Sally Spencer was done so dirty. She is turning in superb performances in an icky storyline. I wish she had stuck around longer. She has chemistry with everyone. The McKinnons should have lasted longer. Spencer had some strong stuff with Stephen Schnetzer and Mary Alexander. AW waster such a talented actress by getting rid of her. Justice for Cheryl too. I also missed Ed Fry when he left. Sandra Ferguson was a star from the moment she came on. She was charismatic and just popped. She had immediate chemistry with RKK and blended in well with Wyndham and Watson. I'd forgotten about the teenage Matthew.  I have no memory of Peggy Lazarus. She must not have lasted long. Was the original plan for John that he was going to turn out to be the twins' real father?      
    • If the new and improved copies that @rsclassicfanforever has uploaded can be manually moved into the "by month, by year" folders, that would be awesome. I personally don't think it's necessary to keep the older versions (which either have Dutch subtitles hard coded on them, or are lesser in picture quality). That's a lot of valuable drive space that could be cleared. Just my view but can appreciate others may feel differently. The structure had been by month by year previously, so I think it would be easier to conform to that, where so much prior work to get it to that format has already been done. Hopefully you can "drag and drop" so the new copies are in the right month/year? Re Clips, I never look at them now we pretty much have the episodes in full. Appreciate others may use, however. Thanks for all your hard work here @BoldRestless!
    • Oh yes defintely, Josh Griffith repeats and repeats the same storylines.
    • Isnt’t this storyline similar to the Cameron Kirsten situation though? Sharon thought she killed him. He ended up being alive and Sharon was being tormented with thinking she was seeing his face everywhere and that’s how we got that iconic scene with her and Nikki in the sewers.   I understand in Mariah’s case this is different circumstances but it does seem like a play on that whole thing. Maybe I’m wrong. I just wish if they were going to make any character follow in Sharon’s foot steps it would be Faith. Mariah wasn’t even raised by her, and her personality is different. I would expect her to take a different path. I understand I could be completely jumping ahead because the storyline hasn’t even played out yet but we’ll see. 
    • Thanks again @Paul Raven Monica was completely without redeeming qualities at this point. I always found the whole Monica = Carly narrative regressive, as I don't think shows comparing characters so heavily is ever a great idea, but she's actually worse than Carly was. Was it the Pollocks who had Leslie have a miscarriage?  Giving her a child, especially by rape, was not a good idea, but a part of me wishes they'd committed to it just to see what story it might have had in later years.
    • @janea4old Your detailed explanation and delving into the psychology and motivations is no doubt the opposite of what we will see onscreeen. As @ranger1rg stated we will get a few scenes and some sketchy explanations. Like the adoption of Aria, most of it will take place off screen.
    • I'm suddenly fearful that DAYS is going to pull a Flowers-for-Algernon stunt and Bo's progress will be reversed.  While @te. is stuck on Abe's tiny bedroom, I can't stop thinking of the size of Bo's huge hospital room.
    • Okay, why are Paulina and Abe sleeping like that?!  I'd take a screen grab if I wasn't lazy, but come on.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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