Home Forums Television Why no Debbie Reynolds?

Why no Debbie Reynolds?

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 22 total)
Created
4 years ago
Last Reply
4 years ago
21
replies
789
views
12
users
5
3
3
  • VanHeflin
    Member
    Joined:
    Feb 25th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #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. 

    Reply
    BTN
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #280898

    Did she meet that ridiculous 5% rule that should be abolished already?

    ReplyCopy URL
    Riley
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #280899

    That is why.

    ReplyCopy URL
    BTN
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #280900

    Such a dumb rule.

    ReplyCopy URL
    VanHeflin
    Member
    Joined:
    Feb 25th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #280901

    What is the 5% rule?

    ReplyCopy URL
    Riley
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #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.

    ReplyCopy URL
    VanHeflin
    Member
    Joined:
    Feb 25th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #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.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Atypical
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 1st, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #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.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Marcus Snowden (The Artist Formerly Known as msnowden1)
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 18th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #280905

    Ellen Burstyn being nominated for Mrs. Harris is name recognition at its worst.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Miss Frost
    Member
    Joined:
    Sep 14th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #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.

    ReplyCopy URL
    24Emmy
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #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?

    ReplyCopy URL
    BTN
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #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!  

    ReplyCopy URL
    Fishbiscuit
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jun 13th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #280909

    5% or not Reynolds does not deserve a nomination. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    VanHeflin
    Member
    Joined:
    Feb 25th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #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.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Daniel Montgomery
    Participant
    Joined:
    May 14th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #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.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 22 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
Hunter-ish - Nov 23, 2017
Television
Dustin ... - Nov 22, 2017
Television