|
Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
I'm doing some research on this today to tie in with the announcement that "reality" TV host Emmy's won't be given out on the telecast. I'm trying to figure out why "reality" stars aren't nominated for Emmys as actors.
Here's the info on the requirements for "Performers" for Emmy nominations: Performers Please note that any requirements for credits, number of programs, number of hours or days, or percentages of time spent (as outlined below) are requirements which must have been met within the four years preceding one's application for membership; also, such requirements apply in each instance to the production or distribution of audio visual works for national exhibition. Active Status: Eight credits of programming for national exhibition in a principal or featured role within the past four (4) years. (A principal or featured role is defined as a contracted major role, or a role consisting of six lines of dialogue or more.) Voice-over performers with eight qualifying credits of programming for national exhibition. or A significant and distinguished body of work to be determined by the PGEC. (Appearances in news magazines and talk shows do not qualify as performance credits. Appearances in reality programming qualify only if the performer has been cast in a principal or featured role as defined above). Associate Status: Two years professional work in the telecommunications industry and at least one featured credit in a program for national exhibition within the last two years. Anyway, does anyone know exactly why they don't get nominated? Not a guess, but actual info? I can't find anything on the web about this specifically. Is it just that they aren't "good" enough to be nominated? |
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
Say that question out loud and see if the answer doesn't come to you... :)
|
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
Originally Posted by rocketsauce
(Post 10304042)
Say that question out loud and see if the answer doesn't come to you... :)
|
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
I would think it is because they are normally considered contestants and even on shows where it is not so much game/prize oriented, they are just being themselves.
|
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
Originally Posted by Draven
(Post 10304047)
I agree...but that's not helpful :) Because as I'm reading the eligibility requirements for Emmy nominations, they could be nominated. I'm just wondering if anyone knows exactly why they aren't.
|
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
Actors are pretending to be somebody else. Reality TV stars are just acting normal (supposedly).
|
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
The stuff you quoted doesn't have anything to do with requirements for being nominated for an Emmy; those are requirements for becoming a member of the voting academy.
|
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
I think the issue lies in what is considered a "role". I read "role" as meaning portraying a character created by a writer with scripted lines and actions, but I'm not sure if that's their definition or not. Under my definition, and using reality shows as an example, I'd say Kristen "Dr. Pat" Wiig and the other 'contestants' in The Joe Schmo Show would qualify, but Matt the 'Schmo' himself would not. Same would go for someone like Dax from Punk'd... where he was actually playing characters in the reality show setup.
|
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
Improvisational Acting
Edit: There is a another point of contention that has been brought up in the courts. Many reality shows do have scripts that are written, but the writers do no get the same benefits/credit that other writers get. This allows the shows to keep their budgets low. Often scenes are re-enacted and embellished to create a better final product. |
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
Originally Posted by Count Dooku
(Post 10304111)
The stuff you quoted doesn't have anything to do with requirements for being nominated for an Emmy; those are requirements for becoming a member of the voting academy.
The reason this came up is because the TV show I produce was going to talk about the reality tv not being part of the telecast thing, and that got us talking about the stars of those shows. If all reality TV ended tomorrow, I would be ecstatic. That said, I'm curious what the distinction really is. Actors in movies that are mostly improvised (like the Christopher Guest films) are still actors, right? |
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
Mike and Pauly D acting surprised to see Angelina in Miami qualifies as "acting" to me.
|
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
As soon as you find out, I'll mount the "Russell Hantz is the Best Actor Ever" Emmy Campaign!
|
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
Russell Hantz has already found six Emmys.
|
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
Originally Posted by Bill Needle
(Post 10304695)
Russell Hantz has already found six Emmys.
|
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
Originally Posted by Draven
(Post 10304194)
But don't you have to be a member of the voting academy to be eligible?
|
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
You could probably contact the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences to get a complete explanation. Try writing them a letter in September, and make it sound like you want the information as research for a paper.
There are basically two good answers to your question that don't require expertise to be offered. One, is that (philosophically) the premise of a reality TV show is that the people appearing on it are not supposed to be acting. One can claim that there is evidence to the contrary, but the premise of the enterprise is that the people are being themselves, not playing characters. The other is the Emmy system. In order to be nominated for an Emmy, one must first submit themselves to be considered. Perhaps a reality "star" [I think the "star" part is more suspect than the reality part] like Spencer Pratt could submit himself as an actor, claiming that he was just playing the role of a total douche, but none has ever tried and tested the water. |
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
Originally Posted by Bill Needle
(Post 10304695)
Russell Hantz has already found six Emmys.
|
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
Is there someone out there that actually wants a Reality star nominated?
|
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
Originally Posted by Draven
(Post 10304047)
I agree...but that's not helpful :) Because as I'm reading the eligibility requirements for Emmy nominations, they could be nominated. I'm just wondering if anyone knows exactly why they aren't.
|
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
Ok, seriously. I GET IT. I do not want reality TV stars on TV...period.
That said, they are contracted, they say lines, they play parts. Just because those parts may bear a passing resemblance to who they really are doesn't automatically mean it's not acting, by the strictest definition. I guess it's just a non-issue, but I'm really surprised there isn't a more definitive answer. |
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
Originally Posted by Draven
(Post 10305351)
That said, they are contracted, they say lines, they play parts. Just because those parts may bear a passing resemblance to who they really are doesn't automatically mean it's not acting, by the strictest definition.
I guess it's just a non-issue, but I'm really surprised there isn't a more definitive answer. Perhaps, the very simple answer to your question is that the people who populate the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences --a great number of which are professional actors, have settled on a somewhat narrower definition of what constitutes "acting". |
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
The only reality star who deserves an Emmy is Ozzy.
|
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
Originally Posted by Count Dooku
(Post 10305399)
Every person who you see on TV, who is aware of the fact that there is a camera present, is, by the strictest definition, acting --because an awareness of the fact that they are being observed causes them to alter their behavior.
Perhaps, the very simple answer to your question is that the people who populate the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences --a great number of which are professional actors, have settled on a somewhat narrower definition of what constitutes "acting". |
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
This thread reminds me of something I heard on tv a few weeks ago:
“My wife loves reality shows, like Real Housewives of New Jersey or whatever it is. I cannot be in the room. It drives me insane. I had this realization one day. Ok, you’re watching people that are not actors in phony situations created by people that are not writers. And the non-actors are second guessing how they think you would like to see them behave were the situation genuine, which it isn’t. And you are passively observing this. You’re technically not even alive at this point. You are watching an amateur production of nothing. If you add one more layer to it, the fabric of reality will tear.” — Dana Gould on The Green Room with Paul Provenza |
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
Originally Posted by Draven
(Post 10305662)
That is my point - I'm just surprised it hasn't become more of an issue. Especially when these reality stars are more popular than many of the actors who win.
Even if you consider improvising on a reality show as 'acting' it's at the very bottom of the rung & not deserving of Emmy consideration. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:12 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.