Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
08-04-10, 11:47 AM
#1
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
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:
I bolded the part about "reality" tv. I feel like many of these shows have people who were cast in "principal" roles, they have contracts, we all know that at least some of the dialogue they say is scripted, and they have to be SAG members as well (I believe).
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?
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.
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?
08-04-10, 12:02 PM
#3
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
08-04-10, 12:05 PM
#4
Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: MN
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
08-04-10, 12:13 PM
#5
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
Well I'm not sure how the Emmys work, but with the Oscars they are nominated by their peers. So actors nominate actors, actresses nominate actresses, directors nominate directors, etc. So maybe no one is voting for the "eligble" reality stars as actors/actresses. Additionally, I'm sure several of the people on the contest shows like Hell's Kitchen don't even qualify to vote (Real World folks however probably do). Why do you ask? Is there some reality "star" you feel genuinely deserves to be nominated? 'Cause I can't think of nary a one.
08-04-10, 12:25 PM
#7
DVD Talk Legend
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.
08-04-10, 12:26 PM
#8
DVD Talk Legend
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.
08-04-10, 12:37 PM
#9
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.
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.
Last edited by Ayre; 08-04-10 at 12:41 PM.
08-04-10, 12:53 PM
#10
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
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?
08-04-10, 09:09 PM
#15
DVD Talk Legend
08-04-10, 09:32 PM
#16
DVD Talk Legend
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.
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.
08-04-10, 11:29 PM
#19
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
Try it again. Say your question out loud again. Should be obvious. If it doesn't "click", keep repeating until it sinks in.
08-05-10, 12:12 AM
#20
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
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.
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.
08-05-10, 01:08 AM
#21
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
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.
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".
08-05-10, 08:48 AM
#23
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
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".
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".
08-05-10, 09:42 AM
#24
DVD Talk Legend
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
“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
08-05-10, 09:45 AM
#25
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: Why aren't "reality" stars considered actors?
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.