What is the measuring stick for a good or a bad actor? Do Emmy's really determine who's better than the rest? Is it possible to be bad in a good way? Can someone brought in as eye candy ever redeem him/herself?
To me there are a couple of actors who I have always considered to be awesome, but I do know that since I have only ever watched General Hospital, Days of Our lives and the Bold & the Beautiful, so there is probably be even more out there that I'm not familiar with. But anyway, my list goes like this...
Ric Hearst [General Hospital] - Hearst is a fantastic actor who can tell a story with his eyes. He's got the intensity and he almost never falls to the trap of overacting like so many do these days *coughMauriceBenardcough*. To me, Ric is one of the rare actors on daytime who is a total package: someone who is good looking, talented and can elevate a horrible storyline to something watchable.
Katherine Kelly Lang [Bold & Beautiful] - KKL is, to me, the best actress on daytime and it's a shame she has never won an Emmy. When given the right material, KKL can you blow you away, as she did in the rape storyline. She can play both the conniving, manipulative soap vixen and the perennial good girl and she can do it with such charm and grace.
Austin Peck [Days Of Our Lives] - The man can. not. act. He has two facial expressions: the blank stare of boredom and the orgasm face and comes off as dumb as rocks. He has no emotion in his delivery and matched against good actors, his weaknesses show even more blatantly.
Alicia Leigh Willis [General Hospital] - She has a condition known as anti-chemistry, where she is unable to create sparks with any actor (the only one who got some charm out of her was Billy Warlock, but we all know that came strickly from him). She doesn't have much of a screen presence and her delivery was always poor and gringe worthy.
Edited by DiamondDoll, Nov 3, 2007 @ 6:03 AM.