MovieChat Forums > The Last of Us (2023) Discussion > The actors playing gay characters won Em...

The actors playing gay characters won Emmys? Really?

posted a year ago by jk90us (7770)
29 replies | jump to latest

Sure. Nothing sketchy, biased or propagandist about this.

Nick Offerman and Storm Reid, who played gay guest characters on The Last of Is, just won guest actor and actress in a drama series at the 2023 Creative Arts Emmys.

The hell? Neither character were important to the series and added nothing to the main plot.

They also wasted two episodes that could have been used to move the main plot forward.

These two won over major actors playing guest characters more integral to the plots of other shows?

Offerman and especially Reid’s acting wasn’t even that good.

And they wonder why no one cares about or watches award shows anymore?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/2023-creative-arts-emmys-guest-actor-actress-drama-winners-nick-offerman-storm-reid-1235778568

[–] SemiAnimus (2781) a year ago

It was annoying that an entire episode was based around a small piece of lore from the game. From what I remember it was a note or journal you could read that suggested the guy you encountered was gay. That episode was a total slog and I've warned people that have asked me about the show to "skip the random episode about two guys making out but otherwise the show is decent minus the overly snarky main girl" more than once.

That they won an Emmy for their unremarkable performance, that was an unnecessary tangent in an otherwise well paced and faithfully adapted show, is par for the course though with how heavily politicized awards committees are.

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

They won the "guest character" award. It wasn't suggesting they were integral to the overall plot. It was based on performance, and while the episode was too sappy for me, they performed very well.

[–] SemiAnimus (2781) a year ago

Guests should synergize with and enhance a plot, not be pointless tangents relative to the overall story placed there for no other reason than to pander to the alphabet crowd and, apparently, win Emmys.

But noone said being integral to the overall plot had anything to do with winning the award anyway.

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

Your opinion is the minority. Apparently TLOU has always had a somewhat semi-anthological undertone to it, and they said this before the show came out.

[–] SemiAnimus (2781) a year ago

My opinion is based on playing through the game multiple times and being annoyed that an otherwise faithful adaptation of it was tainted by pandering to the alphabet crowd in a way that added nothing to the plot.

I fail to see how "semi-anthological" translates into greenlighting an episode that was nothing more than political pandering. It's not like there was more than one side storyline that did this anyway. Excusing this one instance in an otherwise focused show with that label is a lame excuse.

[–] maul (1658) a year ago

"Apparently TLOU has always had a somewhat semi-anthological undertone to it"

Have you even played it? Obviously you haven't. The entire game revolves around Joel/Ellie, and any other character that enters the story is directly engaged with them. At no moment in the game does it venture away from these two main characters.

[–] JBran (1682) a year ago

Are you the Emmy official who said that someone has to 'synergise' and 'enhance' a plot to be nominated as a guest?

Where does it say that is the criteria?

[–] SemiAnimus (2781) a year ago

What I said is a basic concept to writing and why in my opinion that side story was pointless and bad in regards to the overall show.

Clearly the award for the Emmy had a different criteria. In this case it was based on two males kissing on screen.

Queue more of your alphabet outrage.

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

Except it was, regardless of how superfluous and "political" you felt it was, highly regarded. If they just wanted to reward gay people portrayals they could do so easily from any number of random TV shows per year.

Conversely, the Ellie episode (E07) was much less well regarded.

[–] SemiAnimus (2781) a year ago

Your tautology that the show is good because the media/Emmys says it's good holds little weight to me.

I've already explained why it was a bad episode relative to the series and if you're looking for a consensus for your alphabet prerogative you'll find plenty of critics, reviews and articles to agree with you. The same crowds that hand an Emmy to mediocre, out of place performances like these no less.

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>Your tautology that the show is good because the media/Emmys says it's good holds little weight to me.

It had a great audience and critic reception prior to the Emmys. The episode (or the actors, specifically) have long been expected to be a frontrunner for this type of award.

[–] SemiAnimus (2781) a year ago

And I'm sure the "great audience reception and "long expected" quality you mentioned is a piece of information you derived from a media source at some point, a source almost certainly biased towards the same political pandering that resulted in the episode winning an Emmy. Based on your posts, you have a clear bias towards promoting and defending the alphabet agenda in any form and your media consumption habits likely reflect your opinions. It's called confirmation bias.

I don't care about your agenda much, but the episode was out of place and bad to someone like me who watched the show because they wanted to see one of their favorite video games brought to life. Winning an Emmy because it pandered to the alphabet crowd doesn't make it less of a failure in that regard.

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

I've literally told you that the episodes theme didn't do much for me personally, although it had great acting.

[–] SemiAnimus (2781) a year ago

And I've told you that the acting was mediocre. So?

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

That's a matter of opinion. One which is clearly not shared by most people on this topic.

[–] SemiAnimus (2781) a year ago

Yours is an opinion as well, even if it's shared by whatever sources you alluded to before. In regards to your appeal to consensus for validating your opinion, your assessment of "great acting" is the minority in this thread.

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

Appealing for consensus is completely relevant when we're talking about awards and why they are given.

And yeah, I'm a minority in a thread of 4 people. Great observation.

[–] SemiAnimus (2781) a year ago

It doesn't make what I said any less true

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

Of course we are both sharing just opinions, but award ceremonies like this will obviously reflect in some sense the wider opinion of the TV/media/film world.

[–] SemiAnimus (2781) a year ago

And winning an award because two males were brave enough to kiss in a show is pandering to that same media based, agenda driven world who's appeal to authority your claim is riding on. Would you even bother claiming those actors would have won the award based purely off of their performance if they weren't portraying two gay men?

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

I mean I think as much as anything it's that Nick Offerman is award bait, and this is also a high budget HBO show - if you're going to suggest industry bias.

[–] SemiAnimus (2781) a year ago

So you're not going to answer that question? Would the award have been given if it wasn't two gay men being portrayed?

This conversation is as tedious as this website's cell phone interface. I'm out but good luck baiting an argument in your next alphabet agenda driven attempt to stir the pot.

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

I think it's speculative given that this was a HBO show and it was Nick Offerman.

I think it could've done it without it being two gay characters, if the original source literally had Frank as being Francesca.

[–] jk90us (7770) a year ago

The fact that they wasted time with those characters on the show is the biggest problem.

And choosing two mediocre actors playing generic, pointless gay characters from the same series just screams identity politics.

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

You think Nick Offerman is a "mediocre actor"?

Don't know who the other guy is

[–] jk90us (7770) a year ago

He is. He has no acting style at all.

He plays the same character in everything he does with the same monotonous delivery.

And no one gives a damn about the other guy. Because he was a waste of time, just like Offerman.

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>He is. He has no acting style at all.

This is a weird take. Nick Offerman is a highly regarded modern actor.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9382) a year ago

I think Offerman is famous for not having moviestar looks but having made it to playing some main roles and having a following because he is a very good actor, or maybe has charisma in some peculiar way.

Look at Peter Dinklage ... similar situation, he played a big role that people liked, not that he was a great actor. Though he is a very good actor.

The other dude played the manager of the hotel in the first season of "The White Lotus" a very weird but kind of sympathetic character.

[–] TrentnQuarantino (9382) a year ago

That's true, and an Emmy is a bit too much for what was a peculiar stand-out episode of this series, but also as you say unrelated to the rest of the story.

I thought it was surprising watching the episode and how they kept the suspense going because I really thought one of them was going to kill the other at every point.

But what else where they up against in Emmy world?