June 15, 2013 at 12:09 am #280896
They didn’t even submit her for Behind the Candelabra. Why? I think she would have had a good chance. They submitted Dan Ackroyd, Rob Lowe and even Scott Bakula but no Debbie.June 15, 2013 at 12:36 am #280898
Did she meet that ridiculous 5% rule that should be abolished already?June 15, 2013 at 1:09 am #280899
That is why.June 15, 2013 at 1:29 am #280900
Such a dumb rule.June 15, 2013 at 2:09 am #280901
What is the 5% rule?June 15, 2013 at 2:23 am #280902
Also known as the Ellen Burstyn rule, it is in place to save the academy from embarrassment. A few years back, veteran actress Ellen Burstyn had a fourteen-second cameo in a TV movie and voters nominated her for Outstanding Supporting Actress. This effectively proved what everyone had suspected about Emmy voters nominating some people solely off name recognition. Following that controversial incident, the academy instilled a rule that for the movie/mini supporting categories, an actor or actress has to appear in at least five percent of the work. As Reynolds has less than six minutes of screen time in Behind the Candelabra, she cannot be nominated for an Emmy.June 15, 2013 at 2:38 am #280903
Was Ellen Burstyn even in that movie!? As a remember it was just Annette Bening watching Ellen Burstyn on TV playing the same role in a previous TV movie. Did she have a new role too? I don’t remember. Weird that Burstyn and staff even submitted a nomination form.June 15, 2013 at 8:39 am #280904
^ ^ ^ She was. It was a very brief interview scene at the beginning of the film. Burstyn also starred in “The People vs. Jean Harris” in 1981. It was fitting for her to make a cameo appearance in “Mrs. Harris,” though getting nominated for that is an entirely different story.
Debbie Reynolds was great in “Behind the Candelabra.” I would have been fine with her nomination in this case, 5% rule or not.Marcus Snowden (The Artist Formerly Known as msnowden1)ParticipantJune 15, 2013 at 8:55 am #280905
Ellen Burstyn being nominated for Mrs. Harris is name recognition at its worst.June 15, 2013 at 10:19 am #280906
Speaking of her, do you think we’ll see the great Burstyn nominated in the same category for Political Animals this year? Although Paulsonhas the Emmy in the bag, is love to see Ellen back.June 15, 2013 at 3:19 pm #280907
Did she meet that ridiculous 5% rule that should be abolished already?
I didn’t know anybody hated this rule. Why allow big star cameos to be nominated?June 15, 2013 at 3:29 pm #280908
[quote=”BTN”]Did she meet that ridiculous 5% rule that should be abolished already?
I didn’t know anybody hated this rule. Why allow big star cameos to be nominated?[/quote]
Big star cameos can be excellent performances! Short performances can be some of the best of the year! A lot can happen in a minute or 2 in terms of great acting! It’s a dumb rule that makes no sense and lots of good performances from the past that were nominated couldn’t have been! Among the worst exclusions would have been the nominees from Roots the next generations in supporting actor and Swoozie Kurts in And the band played on!June 15, 2013 at 7:08 pm #280909
5% or not Reynolds does not deserve a nomination.June 15, 2013 at 10:20 pm #280910
Gee, I disagree about Swoosie Kurtz. I thought she was pretty riveting in And the Band Played On. It was a small role but very memorable.June 15, 2013 at 10:35 pm #280911
It is possible for someone to give a great performance in less than 5% of the running time — Beatrice Straight in “Network,” of course — but I don’t think Debbie Reynolds meets that standard. I don’t feel she warrants a nomination for that performance over many of the other women eligible, and if she were eligible and had been able to get in it would have almost certainly have been on name recognition alone.
I have yet to see a truly worthy performance that has been left out because of the 5% rule. I’m glad it’s there, because that Ellen Burstyn nomination for “Mrs. Harris” was truly embarrassing for the TV Academy.