perry and leblanc get nominated this year as leads but cannot get a nomination the past 8 years as supporting actors?... I dont even know why perry was nominated this year... he was prime in seasons 5 & 6 and didnt get nominated...
eric mcormack from W&G goes from last year's winner to this year's absentee?
frasier all of a sudden gets snubbed for best comedy after 9 years and 5 wins?... this year wasnt any worse than the past two years...
I dont get it!... but I also dont get how jason alexander never won an emmy, frasier won best comedy for 5 straight years, seinfeld only won one best comedy, ally mcbeal won best comedy in 1999, friends was not even nominated last year for best comedy, schwimmer wasnt nominated for his season 4 performance
what do u guys think? am I crazy or does it make sense?
btw... how must cox feel these days being the only one never to be nominated?
"mjoshi" wrote in message news:zG3_8.38712$[email]...
get
Sometimes you get a "make up" award to make up for when you *should* have gotten an award earlier. I don't believe Perry will actually win in the category this year. In fact, I think LeBlanc might pull it in.
absentee?
I can't think of any outstanding performances this past year from McCormack, although I'd say his character has been consistent and interesting to watch throughout the season.
I felt that this past year was a bit lack-luster compared to others. It's what I think of as a transition year in terms of plot development. Some changes require longer arcs to make the turn, much like a large ship on the ocean.
emmy,
nominated
I think the idea of remaining an "ensemble supporting cast" held the cast back from nominations and wins. However, I think the change in attitudes has given them more chances to win awards. It's a shame to think how much import is placed on awards, but indeed, it can be a real career boost to have awards on your mantle to verify that your work is worth while.
For a cast that considers itself an ensemble, it is a shame that one would be left out, not to mention how it must feel for her personally. She is a fine actress with few opportunities to shine in the role of Monica.
"David Buehrle" wrote in message news:gjf_8.33998$[email]...
Kinda like Kristin Davies on Sex and the City, the only actress from the show who didn't get nominated. Granted, I hated her storyline (I hope Kyle McLachlin is barred from the set), but what in the world did Kim Catrall do last season? IMO, KD and CCA play the same type of character, which doesn't engender much excitement in the Emmy voters.
Depends on what you mean by "make sense". Are the nominations and awards always given out on the basis of merit? Certainly not. A lot of who gets nominated and who wins is political, and a lot of is just a plain-ole popularity contest. In that sense, there is a certain "logic" to the Emmys, though not the kind we would prefer.
IIRC, Matthew Perry was nominated in the _leading_ catagory a couple of years back. But then he withdrew his name. The reason had something to do with wanting to preserve the image of a true ensemble show, with all 6 actors being equal (or at least seeming to be) - they had all agreed to only allow themselves to be nominated in supporting catagories. I recall a bit of controversy over this, I think because BKC had submitted MP in the leading catagory without his approval. I'm sure somebody else out there remembers this incident, and can elaborate (or correct me on the details).
What is interesting is that now the actors have apparently changed their minds, and are willing to be nominated in the lead actor/actress catagory. I'm sure the fact that the show is going into its final season has something to do with this.
And yes, they should have been nominated before, certainly more than the one time. For a long time "Friends" was the Rodney Dangerfield of the sitcom world. It was a huge hit, and praised by critics, but got little or no respect from the Emmy voters. Perhaps because it was _too much_ of a hit, or perhaps because it had such young actors and such a young image. For whatever reason, it didn't have the pedigree of a "Cheers" or a "Frasier".
... I dont even know why
This is the second time I have read a comment like this and I must say that I don't agree. Sure Chandler, the character, didn't have much to do this past year in the way of big stories. All of Chandler's stories last year were little ones. But that doesn't mean that MP didn't still do a superb job of playing him. I think he did.
But even if you are still convinced Matthew did sub-par work last season, then you can consider that this was yet another poltical, popularity-contest-based nomination. Lots of times the Emmy voters (and the Oscar voters, for that matter) will snub a worthy actor/director/producer for popularity reasons. Later, they start feeling a little bad about that and will go out of their way to give nominations and awards to those same people, even when they don't really deserve it for the work they're currently doing, just to make up for past errors. Happens all the time.
.. he was prime in seasons 5 & 6 and didnt get
Politics, again.
Well that last statement is subjective. I still think "Frasier" is a very good show on the whole. No TV show can stay the same forever. But I would imagine that the main reason it didn't get nominated is simply because the Emmy voters got bored with nominating the same show year after year after year, and wanted to give some other shows a chance. That's just my guess - there could be a lot of different things at work here.
By the same token, I think one of the main reasons "Friends" got nominated this year is because they are going into their final season. Sort of the sitcom equivalent of a lifetime-achievement award.
Well A) no , the Emmys are not always given out by merit, and B) you certainly shouldn't expect the Emmy voters' opinions to always agree with your own. A lot of this is very subjective, which make sit all the more difficult to define, empirically, who deserves to be nominated and who deserves to win.
All I would say is try not to waste too much energy worrying about awards. A lot of it has to do with politics, who's popular, who's not, who's in, who's out, etc etc.
I'm sure it hurts her feelings a bit. But then again, she's happily married, gorgeous, filthy rich, and adored by millions, so I'm sure that softens the blow considerably.
Actually, you do not remember entirely correctly. Matthew Perry was not actually nominated for anything. He discovered that his name had been submitted for *consideration* for a *possible* lead nomination. This was months before the actual nominations were made. He pulled his name out of that category, which was a sacrifice of sorts; since the deadline for entering candidates for possible nominations had past, this meant that he was not eligible to be nominated for Supporting Actor, and Matt and David still were.
Thanks for clarifying. As I said in my post, I knew if I had any of the details wrong somebody would probably come along and correct me. What I chiefly remember about that whole incident was that it was a fairly big news story in the entertainment world, and I suppose that's why I thought he had actually gotten the nomination. In any event, I'm very happy that he, Matt, and Jennifer got the leading nominations this year, and that the show itself was nominated.
why can't you just enjoy the fact that after 8 years they were finally recognized. i am sick of Frasier -- especially since the show won 5 times in a row -- that's enough and Friends has not even won once.
Matthew Perry has deserved to be nominated for years and now you question why he was?
The academy has finally gotten to up to the times and finally recognized a show and actors who are just as deserving as Frasier and since Eric McCormack won last year, don't you think the slot should be open to the likes of Matthew Perry.
Are you a friends fan or not because I am jumping up and down at the nominations. Leblanc and Aniston must win.
Where in my post did I ever give the impression that I did not enjoy the fact that "Friends" has gotten these nomintaions?
i am sick of Frasier -- especially since the show won 5 times in a
O-kaaay. Well then you should be happy this year, since "Frasier" was not even nominated. FWIW, I think "Friends" has an excellent shot at winning this year.
Where in my post did I ever suggest that MP should not have been nominated? That was the poster who originated this thread, not me. At first I was inclined to believe that you were replying to me rather than him simply by mistake, except that you also sent me an e-mail. So, look at my post again. I make it very clear in my post that I think MP deserves the nomination this year.
Again, where are you getting this from? Where in my post did I ever imply that EM should have gotten the nomination instead of MP? Once again, I must assume that you meant this as a reply to the originator of this thread, not me. But then again, you sent the e-mail to me.
That's nice. It is possible to be a "Friends" fan and _not_ jump up and down when they get Emmy nominations.
Must? That sounds rather like an ultimatum. What the heck are you going to do about it of they don't win?
first off... I'm guessing this reply was made to me...
and I do enjoy the fact taht all the actors were nominated... I just asked if it made sense that this was the year... u agreed Perry deserved to be nominated "for years now"... which is exactly what I said... he was prime in seasons 5 & 6 so why did he get nominated this year?...
and for the record I am a Friends fan and would love to see some emmy wins for the show... Leblanc would be a worthy choice and Aniston is up against stiff competition... I really want Friends to win best comedy seriesand I feel they're only real challenge should be Everybody Loves Raymond...