Home Forums Television Supporting Contenders Who Would’ve Benefited From Lead Placement

Supporting Contenders Who Would’ve Benefited From Lead Placement

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
Created
3 weeks ago
Last Reply
3 weeks ago
16
replies
1291
views
8
users
Riley Chow
3
Army Of Me
3
Dan Backslide
3
  • Profile picture
    Dan Backslide
    Joined:
    Apr 24th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203949496

    Who are supporting actors and actresses who would’ve fared better if placed in lead?

    I thought of this because I realized Jason Alexander likely would’ve had a stronger shot at winning for Seinfeld if he was put in lead with Jerry Seinfeld rather in supporting with Michael Richards, who he lost to three times.

    There’s a definite split between whether Alexander or Richards was better, but everybody prefers Alexander to Seinfeld. Not to mention, all four principles’ on the show were pretty much leads.

    Reply
    Profile picture
    wolfali
    Joined:
    Sep 4th, 2018
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203949515

    I actually think that had Rose Byrne been submitted in lead she would have been nominated for the first season of Damages.

    I also think that if Matt Czuchry was submitted as the lead for The Good Wife he may have had a clearer path when the show was at its peak at the Emmys as he faced internal competition from both Charles and Cumming on the show in supporting.

    Whilst I don’t think she would have fared better I do think had Collette gone lead for Unbelievable she would have still gotten nominated. It felt like her performance had the most passion of the three leads from the show from awards bodies. Her slot in supporting actress would have been taken by either Hong Chau or Patti LuPone.

    FYC OSCARS : PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN IN ALL CATEGORIES (ESP. ACTRESS – Carey Mulligan AND ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY — EMERALD FENNELL), VANESSA KIRBY FOR "PIECES OF A WOMAN", ESSIE DAVIS FOR "BABYTEETH"

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Riley Chow
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203950021

    It felt like her performance had the most passion of the three leads from the show from awards bodies.

    Because she was in supporting.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    wolfali
    Joined:
    Sep 4th, 2018
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203950026

    Because she was in supporting.

    I don’t think it was just because she was in supporting. She got in at SAG with the combined categories in a very competitive field so the passion was there for her performance. I say this as someone who felt Unbelievable was being overestimated throughout the entirety of the previous Emmy season.

    It’s hardly like the supporting category was weaker than the lead one that year either.

    FYC OSCARS : PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN IN ALL CATEGORIES (ESP. ACTRESS – Carey Mulligan AND ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY — EMERALD FENNELL), VANESSA KIRBY FOR "PIECES OF A WOMAN", ESSIE DAVIS FOR "BABYTEETH"

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Emmyfan
    Joined:
    Nov 26th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203950664

    Who are supporting actors and actresses who would’ve fared better if placed in lead?

    I thought of this because I realized Jason Alexander likely would’ve had a stronger shot at winning for Seinfeld if he was put in lead with Jerry Seinfeld rather in supporting with Michael Richards, who he lost to three times.

    There’s a definite split between whether Alexander or Richards was better, but everybody prefers Alexander to Seinfeld. Not to mention, all four principles’ on the show were pretty much leads.

    Unfortunately, Jason Alexander would have lost if he were nominated in Lead. His best shot would have possibly been in 1993 when Ted Danson won for the last year of Cheers. He would have probably lost in 1994, 1995, and 1998 which were won by Kelsey Grammar from Frasier and to John Lithgow in 1996 and 1997 for 3rd Rock From The Sun.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Army Of Me
    Joined:
    Jan 11th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203950705

    Alexander was supporting in Seinfeld and his best chance at winning would have been in supporting. It’s unfortunate he was never able to overcome Richards, his role just wasn’t as flashy. George was a supporting character, every actor other than Jerry were supporting him. Alexander would have had no chance against Danson or especially Grammar or Lithgow, both of whom were undeniable and dominating leads.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Dan Backslide
    Joined:
    Apr 24th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203950710

    Unfortunately, Jason Alexander would have lost if he were nominated in Lead. His best shot would have possibly been in 1993 when Ted Danson won for the last year of Cheers. He would have probably lost in 1994, 1995, and 1998 which were won by Kelsey Grammar from Frasier and to John Lithgow in 1996 and 1997 for 3rd Rock From The Sun.

    I’m not saying he would’ve won, but his biggest obstacle in supporting was competing with an equally acclaimed costar who clearly took his fair share of votes, and he wouldn’t have had to worry about that if he was up against his less popular lead actor.

    It’s interesting to me how Alexander, Richards, and Louis-Dreyfus all got several individual SAG nominations, with Seinfeld never getting in alongside them. Clearly actors responded better to his costars.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Dan Backslide
    Joined:
    Apr 24th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203950716

    Alexander was supporting in Seinfeld and his best chance at winning would have been in supporting. It’s unfortunate he was never able to overcome Richards, his role just wasn’t as flashy. George was a supporting character, every actor other than Jerry were supporting him. Alexander would have had no chance against Danson or especially Grammar or Lithgow, both of whom were undeniable and dominating leads.

    He won the inaugural SAG Comedy Actor (but lost out on future nods when Richards was nominated as well), so I believe that it could’ve happened with a lesser vote split.

    Also, I don’t think every other character was supporting Jerry. George, Elaine, and Kramer all had countless plots that they themselves drove. Jerry was the title character, his apartment was the biggest set, and he had the brief standup segments, but his role wasn’t much bigger than his supporting actors. All of them lead their own stories and played supporting to the plots of each other.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Army Of Me
    Joined:
    Jan 11th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203950749

    So you would have wanted all of the core four to submit in lead? Why would you single out George as a lead? Only because he’s the only supporting actor who couldn’t win his category? Richards and Louis-Dreyfus were both able to win competitive supporting races, and both would have likely been snubbed in lead. The show was not built around their personas.

    Grammar was the lead in Frasier, Shandling was The Larry Sanders Show, same goes with Ray Romano in Everybody Loves Raymond. All of these shows had significant supporting characters that had their own storylines and yet I don’t recall there being a push to nominate Hyde Pierce in lead, and he won multiple SAG awards. Brad Garrett also had his own storylines and sometimes had more comedic moments than the lead, but I guess I just see things differently.

    I always thought Seinfeld was created to compliment Jerry’s point of view, he tied together the stories thematically, sometimes with his stand up. Louis-Dreyfus was able to win a Golden Globe and two individual SAG awards but I’m not sure she would have won or even been nominated in the highly competitive leading category. So many of these comedic actresses had the show created for them, like Candice Bergen, Ellen Degeneres, Cybill Shepherd and Roseanne. I’m a huge fan of these series but I think it just made logical sense to single out a lead, or in some cases two leads. I’m sure it was likely in the contract that Cybill Shepherd was the lead in the series named after her, even if Christine Baranski received more acclaim and was singled out by SAG.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Dan Backslide
    Joined:
    Apr 24th, 2016
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203950755

    I didn’t say that those three should’ve been submitted as leads, I’m just saying Jerry’s part is only slightly larger than their’s, and Alexander would’ve done better in terms of internal competition against him than Richards.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Army Of Me
    Joined:
    Jan 11th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203950794

    Contracts and salaries were also likely factors in placement for shows like Seinfeld and Friends. For example, the latter had an all for one mentality which resulted in some being nominated while competing in supporting and some in lead, I believe Aniston was nominated in both, winning lead. The actors in Friends all had the same contract and salary, therefore it made sense to keep them together.

    Seinfeld was a different scenario, as Jerry was the driving force, created the show, and made significantly more than the other three. I remember reading that the other three banded together in negotiations to receive significant raises during the last few seasons.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Kay
    Joined:
    Feb 22nd, 2019
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203951676

    Kit Harington on the sixth season of Game of Thrones

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Riley Chow
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203951804

    How so?

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    Kay
    Joined:
    Feb 22nd, 2019
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203952685

    How so?

    Regardless of screen time on other episodes, with “Battle of the Bastards” (most acclaimed episode of the year, Writing and Directing winner) he may have even beat Malek. Jon Snow was like the biggest thing that year, he would’ve gotten nominated easily and with Dinklage out of the way… who knows what could’ve happened.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Profile picture
    DylanMcPhee
    Joined:
    Mar 13th, 2020
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #1203952930

    The actors in Friends all had the same contract and salary, therefore it made sense to keep them together.

    I think that makes complete since, fiscally, as all were responsible for what Friends became; but I don’t see the logic when submitting them for awards? You’d think surely they could have flipped a coin to see who would submit lead/supporting and increase the chance of recognition and nominations for the show and its actors. It surprises me that while Friends will probably be the sitcom to truly stand the test of time, the cast were nowhere near as acclaimed by awards bodies as other shows of the time.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
wolfali - Jan 14, 2021
Television
Gabarnes43 - Jan 14, 2021
Television
ENGLAND - Jan 13, 2021
Television