|re: quite shocked that HOLLYWOOD got 4 acting noms and 0 were for LuPone or Mantello|
|Last Edit: WaymanWong 09:35 pm EDT 07/28/20|
|Posted by: WaymanWong 09:28 pm EDT 07/28/20|
|In reply to: re: quite shocked that HOLLYWOOD got 4 acting noms and 0 were for LuPone or Mantello - Chazwaza 09:06 pm EDT 07/28/20|
|''If they give preference to past winners, rather than deserving actors who have not yet won (or even been nominated) ...''
Who's deserving is always a judgment call. Ideally, the voters have watched many of the shows before they vote, but there are TONS and TONS to see, and the choices have exponentially multiplied with all the streaming services. Voters often vote for who they know, and like and admire.
Sometimes, there's just blatant name-checking. Probably the most egregious example happened in 2006. Tony- and Oscar-winning legend Ellen Burstyn was nominated for Supporting Actress for the HBO movie ''Mrs. Harris.'' According to the Hollywood Reporter, Burstyn spoke only 2 lines of dialogue, totaling 38 words, and her screen time lasted only 14 seconds. Still, it was a result of a popular vote, so it was a legitimate nomination. However, a blue-ribbon panel voted for the winner, and Burstyn did not win. After that incident, the Emmys amended their rules.
The Emmys used to have blue-ribbon panels pick the winners, and they'd get together to actually watch the tapes. Sometimes that resulted in lesser-known performers winning over bigger names, based on their submission. But now the general membership votes online from their homes.
|Previous:||re: quite shocked that HOLLYWOOD got 4 acting noms and 0 were for LuPone or Mantello - Chazwaza 09:06 pm EDT 07/28/20|
|Next:||re: quite shocked that HOLLYWOOD got 4 acting noms and 0 were for LuPone or Mantello - Chazwaza 10:07 pm EDT 07/28/20|
Time to render: 0.009157 seconds.