Michael Emerson is ripped off

[Reed]

Originally Posted by Kiowa Warrior

I agree, Foxy would win 'Best Cry Baby,' 'Best Bully,' 'Most Arrogant Character' and 'Prime Example of How a Doctor Should Not Act' awards easily!

But in all seriousness I really don't rate Matt Fox as that great an actor. Taking aside the fact that I despise his character with a passion, I just don't think Matt can compare to the A-List of actors on Lost: Terry, Michael, Henry, Josh and Naveen consistently out act him in my view, so I think it absolutely right that Matt hasn't been up for an Emmy because while he's not the world's worst actor, he is far far far from being a top one on Lost.

You forgot "Most Handsome". I jest.

I would have to disagree as I really do think his acting on Lost has been great - though I am not placing him above the others in any way as they are brilliant too. Though this is coming from someone that thinks Evangeline is a good actress so perhaps I am not the best judge. I suppose I always see a good actor/actress in someone who does not act poorly, so my standards are low.

By the way, I hope my pro-Jack comments are not winding you up as I only ever say such things in jest

[Kiowa Warrior]

Originally Posted by Reed

You forgot "Most Handsome". I jest.

I would have to disagree as I really do think his acting on Lost has been great - though I am not placing him above the others in any way as they are brilliant too. Though this is coming from someone that thinks Evangeline is a good actress so perhaps I am not the best judge. I suppose I always see a good actor/actress in someone who does not act poorly, so my standards are low.

By the way, I hope my pro-Jack comments are not winding you up as I only ever say such things in jest

Only a Mother could love someone with a face like his

Well each to their own so if you think Foxy is a good actor fair enough, since while he's had his moments for me I generally consider him mediocre, both in and out of Lost. Like I think he was competent but completely unexciting and forgettable in Vantage Point. Nah I wouldn't say your standards are low, just different!

Oh no, it's good to talk to someone with a different opinion. In an ideal world of course Jack would have no-one on his side, but it would be pretty boring though! And as much as I hate Jack the character, I certainly don't hate his fans

[Reed]

Originally Posted by Kiowa Warrior

Only a Mother could love someone with a face like his

Well each to their own so if you think Foxy is a good actor fair enough, since while he's had his moments for me I generally consider him mediocre, both in and out of Lost. Like I think he was competent but completely unexciting and forgettable in Vantage Point. Nah I wouldn't say your standards are low, just different!

Oh no, it's good to talk to someone with a different opinion. In an ideal world of course Jack would have no-one on his side, but it would be pretty boring though! And as much as I hate Jack the character, I certainly don't hate his fans

Less we forget his family and legion of adoring fans.

I think Vantage Point was probably not the best example because it did not allow him to showcase his abilities that much, unlike the main character who had ALOT more to do. Low standards are good because I am less likely to find fault with actors - though I often critque actors/actresses and often pick up on bad acting. So I suppose I have a good eye for it somewhat, but for whatever reason love Fox as Jack.

Good to know In an ideal World, Locke and Jack would play Backgammon and take regular walks together while discussing how much they hate Paolo.

[Kiowa Warrior]

Originally Posted by Reed

Less we forget his family and legion of adoring fans.

I think Vantage Point was probably not the best example because it did not allow him to showcase his abilities that much, unlike the main character who had ALOT more to do. Low standards are good because I am less likely to find fault with actors - though I often critque actors/actresses and often pick up on bad acting. So I suppose I have a good eye for it somewhat, but for whatever reason love Fox as Jack.

Good to know In an ideal World, Locke and Jack would play Backgammon and take regular walks together while discussing how much they hate Paolo.

His family yes, but legion of adoring fans? It's not good to lie you know Reed...

I thought Vantage Point was an average film at best anyway, but compared to some of the other actors in that film Fox just wasn't anything special: I could have imagined any other actor playing his part. True he didn't have a broad range of emotions or anything to get his teeth into, but I felt he could have played his character with a lot more depth and hidden menece.

And of course Locke would win every time and then have to spend their walks handing Jack tissues as he crys his little eyes out... Locke would badmouth Kate and then get hit for it! And they would both probably struggle to remember who Paulo was, lol.

[Reed]

Originally Posted by Kiowa Warrior

His family yes, but legion of adoring fans? It's not good to lie you know Reed...

I thought Vantage Point was an average film at best anyway, but compared to some of the other actors in that film Fox just wasn't anything special: I could have imagined any other actor playing his part. True he didn't have a broad range of emotions or anything to get his teeth into, but I felt he could have played his character with a lot more depth and hidden menece.

And of course Locke would win every time and then have to spend their walks handing Jack tissues as he crys his little eyes out... Locke would badmouth Kate and then get hit for it! And they would both probably struggle to remember who Paulo was, lol.

How about his short queue of adoring fans? I do worry for Fox if ever he were apart of an autograph signing. I, of course, would attend - changing my disguise several times and rejoining the queue to make him feel important.

I suppose his script was to blame also. But perhaps you are right, another Actor may have peformed better. Well let us [or his fans] hope he betters himself in future movies.

You forgot to mention Jack saying "damn it" after each loss. Which one was Paolo again? Just joking. I do miss the good moments between Locke and Jack, of which were very few and far between but still nice.

[Kiowa Warrior]

Originally Posted by Reed

How about his short queue of adoring fans? I do worry for Fox if ever he were apart of an autograph signing. I, of course, would attend - changing my disguise several times and rejoining the queue to make him feel important.

I suppose his script was to blame also. But perhaps you are right, another Actor may have peformed better. Well let us [or his fans] hope he betters himself in future movies.

You forgot to mention Jack saying "damn it" after each loss. Which one was Paolo again? Just joking. I do miss the good moments between Locke and Jack, of which were very few and far between but still nice.

LOL! And after he signed each autograph you'd pat his head in love and pity and whisper 'don't worry Matt, at least you've got me...' If I was there I'd get his autograph as well, since you can never have too much scrap paper laying around just in case...

Yeah it wasn't a brilliant script in the first place, so maybe another actor wouldn't have been a 100% improvement, but I just don't rate him highly. I've got Speed Racer on DVD and will get round to watching that to see if he performs any better.

Ah yes of course he'd swear: and then try and hit something/someone before looking round wildly for a gun.
Yes Locke and Jack have had some very good scenes together before they more or less became outright enemies and Jack consistently began treating Locke like dirt not worth scraping off his shoe. Locke giving Jack his 'crazy people don't know they're crazy' speech in S1 and their confrontation about whether to puch the button or not at the start of S2 were some great scenes between the two.

[TimeTravellingBunny]

Originally Posted by Kiowa Warrior

It's even more shameful that Michael isn't in the Best Actor category to begin with!
(At least Matthew wasn't in it )

I was wondering if someone else finds the whole business of nominating Michael or Terry in the Best Supporting Actor category really stupid? I wonder in which alternate universe Locke is a "supporting" character on Lost and Ben has really been the main focus of season 4.

... Yeah, OK, I'm happy that Terry won last year. But the way they decide who is nominated in which category is still stupid. Same things happens with the Oscars. If they want to nominate more lead actors, they should just change the rules and have 10 nominees in the Best Lead Actor/Actress category. Best Supporting Actor/Actress should be reserved for people who actually play supporting roles.

(BTW there is no "Best Actor" category, in Emmys, GGs or Oscars... it's just the popular name for Best Performance by An Actor in a Leading Role. It's not like that the person who gets the award for Best Actor In A Leading Role is judged to have given a better performance than the actor who gets the award for Best Actor In A Supporting Role. It's just a matter of playing two different type of roles. Or it should be. But Emmy and Oscar people keep nominating lead actors in "supporting" categories, which makes the whole thing absurd. )

I wouldn't make any comments about the decision to give the Emmy to Zeljko Ivanek for "Damages", since I have never seen the show. I can't judge a show or a performance that I've never seen, or compare it to some other performance. For all we know, he might have been absolutely great and as deserving of the award as Michael Emerson was.

But you know, Emmys in general... ah well, they get some things right, but I hold grudge at them continually ignoring great shows like Battlestar Galactica, or earlier, Homicide: LOTS, and many others, while nominating and giving awards to average shows like Boston Legal or Grey's Anatomy every year.

[Kiowa Warrior]

Originally Posted by TimeTravellingBunny

I was wondering if someone else finds the whole business of nominating Michael or Terry in the Best Supporting Actor category really stupid? I wonder in which alternate universe Locke is a "supporting" character on Lost and Ben has really been the main focus of season 4.

... Yeah, OK, I'm happy that Terry won last year. But the way they decide who is nominated in which category is still stupid. Same things happens with the Oscars. If they want to nominate more lead actors, they should just change the rules and have 10 nominees in the Best Lead Actor/Actress category. Best Supporting Actor/Actress should be reserved for people who actually play supporting roles.

I wouldn't make any comments about the decision to give the Emmy to Zeljko Ivanek for "Damages", since I have never seen the show. I can't judge a show or a performance that I've never seen, or compare it to some other performance. For all we know, he might have been absolutely great and as deserving of the award as Michael Emerson was.

But you know, Emmys in general... ah well, they get some things right, but I hold grudge at them continually ignoring great shows like Battlestar Galactica, or earlier, Homicide: LOTS, and many others, while nominating and giving awards to average shows like Boston Legal or Grey's Anatomy every year.

Locke hasn't been a supporting character since Walkabout was shown, and Ben's been at the centre of things since S3 started! It's ridiculous. Jack is constantly pushed in our faces one way or another but his character is nothing special whatsover and brings what to the show? The stereotypical flawed hero? Urgh.

I bet there's some dodgy backroom deals going on somewhere...

No I've never watched a lot fo the shows that won Emmys so I've never and am not going to begrudge them their wins at Lost's expense; my anger is reserved for the fact that Michael and Terry are only considered - what - 'good' enough for supporting role/actor status? Terrible. Both Jack the character and Matt Fox the actor are only good enough for supporting status, when you compare them to Michael/Ben, Terry/Locke, Henry/Desmond, Josh/Sawyer, Naveen/Sayid as both characters and actors, who are miles ahead in terms of talent and screen presence.

If I had my way Lost, The Shield and Battelstar Galactica would win Emmys every year!

[TimeTravellingBunny]

Originally Posted by Kiowa Warrior

Locke hasn't been a supporting character since Walkabout was shown, and Ben's been at the centre of things since S3 started! It's ridiculous. Jack is constantly pushed in our faces one way or another but his character is nothing special whatsover and brings what to the show? The stereotypical flawed hero? Urgh.

I bet there's some dodgy backroom deals going on somewhere...

No I've never watched a lot fo the shows that won Emmys so I've never and am not going to begrudge them their wins at Lost's expense; my anger is reserved for the fact that Michael and Terry are only considered - what - 'good' enough for supporting role/actor status? Terrible. Both Jack the character and Matt Fox the actor are only good enough for supporting status, when you compare them to Michael/Ben, Terry/Locke, Henry/Desmond, Josh/Sawyer, Naveen/Sayid as both characters and actors, who are miles ahead in terms of talent and screen presence.

If I had my way Lost, The Shield and Battelstar Galactica would win Emmys every year!

BSG has its name, the SciFi/space show stigma, and the fact that it's on the SciFi channel, going against it. It's interesting that it has still managed to squeeze the writing and directing nominations, but none for the cast and none for Best Drama. The Shield... I don't know, I suppose the fact that it's also on a cable channel that isn't HBO isn't helping, and maybe it's just the kind of show that Emmy voters are not too fond of? Although Michael Chiklis and Glenn Close did get some recognition. But there are other great actors on that show. I was shocked that Walton Goggins wasn't nominated for... which season was it, 5, 6? When he killed Lem, and the aftermath of it... I despised the character since day 1, and he made me feel sorry for him at the precise moment when he commited his most despicable act... now that's really something. I also thought Forest Whitaker was awesome, I'm surprised that he didn't get nominated for his role on The Shield, especially since he's a big name, but I guess that's because he was nominated for ER... I don't watch ER so I have no idea if he was better on it... or if people from NBC just did more lobbying for their show. I wonder how much lobbying is responsible for the Emmy nominations?

I don't know what 'good enough for supporting role' means... It shouldn't be about who is 'good enough' for anything, but about the actual screentime/importance to the plot/character focus. That's what determines, or should determine, the classification into 'leads' and 'supporting roles'. With ensamble casts, it can get particularly confusing. For instance, all the leads in shows like Friends or Desperate Housewives were always nominated in supporting categories for some reason. I really do wonder how TPTB decide who to submit in which category. I know that, for BSG, TPTB are always submitting only Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell in the lead categories, and everyone else in the supporting categories, which is rather absurd in some cases (Starbuck and Baltar have really had by far the most screentime and character focus out of all the characters throughout the series), but I guess the reasoning is that 1) EJO and MM are the first in the credits, and 2) they are veterans and a lot better known outside BSG than any of the other cast members. But with LOST, you can't apply 1) and 2) obviously doesn't work for Fox and Lilly - so what are the criteria?

[Kiowa Warrior]

First of all let me just say how happy I am so find someone who's not only heard of The Shield but watches it as well! I think you're my new best friend TTB

The Shield really isn't mainstream TV I don't reckon, what with all the graphic storylines/language/characters they use so while I'm dissapointed its never truly got the recognition I think it deserves I'm not all that surprised. But it's such a unique show though and is fantastically realistic and hard hitting and just exciting TV to watch and get involved in. Michael Chiklis has been great from S1 and has has such great screen presence and charisma as well as successfully conveying practically every emotion you can think of.

Glen Close and Forrest Whitaker are both great actors in whatever they're in and The Shield really does get top class talent for a lot of its supporting characters. Forest was good on ER as well but ER became flooded with famous actors making guest appearances that I thought his character on The Shield was a lot more striking and memorable. Walton Goggins is a wonderful actor but I've never really liked his charcter that much from the start, and even after all that he's done I don't exactly hate him, but I've never really been on his side if that makes sense? But the best character has to be Dutch though.

I don't know what 'good enough for supporting role' means... It shouldn't be about who is 'good enough' for anything, but about the actual screentime/importance to the plot/character focus.

See I think Jack/Matt Fox gets far too much screentime for a character that I don't think is that important to the show compared to the other characters I previously mentioned. If Jack was taken out of Lost, what would be the effect? There wouldn't be a flawed hero doing his best to get everyone home. If however Ben or Locke were taken out whole storylines affecting everyone on the Island would be compromised, which is why I consider them far more important to the show as a whole than Jack, and yet they're not considered to be in leading roles according to some.