This is more than you probably want know but I hate to see anything posted to Room 23 based on possible misinformation. (The LA Times ain't squat since Sam Zell took over but that's a whole other story.) Nothing regarding outstanding actors is written in stone as yet. Maybe their spies are correct about finalists but maybe not.
Spoke to
If you want to take a look at the recent Emmy info from the Times and from Tom O'Neil who posted the finalists:
http://tinyurl.com/56tuws
or
http://goldderbyforums.latimes.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1106078764/m/514108091
Of course I want to see Lost take some gold but I have to be realistic too. Based on their "spy" reports, one of the panels (of about 30 people) only had a few that were under 50. Also from the same report: "I asked one voter about the ability to understand Lost. He said that he isn't a regular viewer but was very impressed and thought it had an arc that would be clear to at least a casual viewer. He wondered if some of the older non-viewers would understand or not."
Your Friend,
So, take the emmy news you are getting with a spoonful of sketicism for at least a little while.
No comments:
Post a Comment