The Hot Blog

David, the Globes are the new Oscars...

Why?

1) Many movies got a bump in the b.o. after winning Globes this year. None got it from Oscar.

2) The Globes show is becoming waaay more fun than the Oscars, with memorable speeches and no wkward montges or music numbers.

and of course...

3) Oscar lost its credibility by rewarding the (excellent) "Crsh", by chickening to trecongnize the truly important film of 2005.

I agree with what Tony says, except for the fact that Crash almost certainly got a big bump in DVD rentals/sales, and the use of the word "excellent" which should of course be replaced by something far less flattering.

And on top of that, the GG noms tend to be more populist, especially with the comedy/musical category and the inclusion of TV.

Well... the word DOES rhyme with "excellent."

The Globes show hasn't been fun for several years.

Poland's right: the only show that matters is the Oscars, and if the Globes aren't predictive or can't influence Oscar votes, then it's as irrelevant as the People's Choice.

Gotta agree with Wrecktum here. I barely paid attention to the Globes this year...they lack any real integrity. Especially when it comes to the TV categories. No offense to Wentworth Miller in Prison Break, but was he really more deserving of a nomination after Ian McShane was riveting in Deadwood and all he did was lay in a bed for a good portion of the season? (And I like Prison Break!)

Say what you want about not liking the show or not agreeing with the winners, it is still better viewed to be a finalist for an Oscar than to be a winner of a Golden Globe.

The other award shows will be important when they'll stop measuring themselves by how much they influence the Oscars. Right now, nothing they do really counts because they're just not scrutinized as much.

"Last season, as the HFPA completely missed Crash and dissed Best Picture nominees Munich and Capote (ending up matching only 2 Oscar Best Picture nominees with 10 shots to get them), the buzz around the power of The Globes went radio silent once the Oscar nominations put them in their place."

1. So because the HFPA actually nominated movies like Match Point, A History of Violence and The Constant Gardener instead of Crash, Munich (which barely anyone was nominating for anything btw) and Capote makes them less worthy? Ugh. You went through this stupid argument when the awards were announced. You COMPLAINED that they weren't indicitive of what the Oscars were gonna be! How can you even remotely complain about an awards body that gave extremely high profile noms to those three films instead of shit like Munich and passable awards-pandering stuff like Crash and Capote?

Oh, BUT OF COURSE, your prescious awards show (the BFCA) who serve absolutely ZERO purpose other than to predict the Oscars (as the host and announcers repeatedly told us you're the BEST at it! way to go!!!!) so they're better.

Yes, the globes might not be important to anyone but they're a helluva lot more entertaining than an awards show that prides itself of trying to be a carbon copy of the Oscars.

And, wow, the HFPA sure were PUT INTO THEIR PLACE by not nominating Crash. I'm sure they're feeling real sorry for themselves. How could they miss THAT one? pfft, gimme a break.

KamikazeCamelV2.0....

AMEN to what you said, my good man. Took the words right out of my mouth.

Why does the GG have to be a barometer of the Oscars? This is an awards ceremony with an open bar for cripe's sake!

TWO SEPERATE AWARDS ENTITIES PEOPLE! One doesn't have to be influential over the other. The HFPA has never tried to be what the Oscars is or equal it's meaning in terms of the prestige of it's award. Rather, the HFPA has always been it's own circuit that rewards or recognizes films that Oscar would otherwise ignore. While often the HFPA sees eye-to-eye with the Academy, again, it's never tried to actually BE the Academy or take over. Hence giving Madonna a Best Actress Award or Jim Carrey back-to-back Globe wins when the Academy would no sooner turn their noses and literally rub them a pile of crap than give them nominations. The HFPA prides itself on NOT being a pre-cursor to the Oscars.

If they wanted to influence the Academy, they would have said good bye to the television side and free booze a LONG time ago.

"the buzz around the power of The Globes went radio silent"

I think it's more like the power of the Oscars went radio silent after Crash won.

Since the Oscars are speeding down the highway of irrelevance, it may just be that the Globes may become the focus. They are both just old social clubs in essence. Why shouldn't the Globes be the winner? Besides, this year's Oscar show sucked so badly that the audience for next year's show may be too small to care about at the box office.

What do any award show bring to the table besides Oscar precursors? Is there a reason for all these shows and awards other than a free cocktail hour and a self congratulatory pat on the back?
They add some suspense and intrigue to the Oscar season but there is really no need for them at all. The Golden Globes especially. I still can't believe we take them seriously as anything other than good tv. They sold their show ( and their soul)decades ago.

Take all these pre shows with a huge grain of salt because no one really respects them anyway. The average moviegoer can't even name these shows anyway. It's for industry types who like being in the know and feeling important. That's not a bad thing since the food and drinks are great at these events.

Why does everyone thinks contested winners will kill the Oscars? When was this time when the winners were not contested? People who never won for directing: Charlie Chaplin, Orson Wells, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese. These are only the ones I can think of but I think they cover a lot of eras.

The choices were always contested. What makes the Oscar so big is because of the loudness of the people contesting. When people will stop screaming because a certain film wasn't as rewarded as they'd like, the Oscars won't be as important. And when the Globes will be considered number one and starts receiving as much attention, we'll see how relaxed the atmosphere will be.

But since I can still hear the screaming, it's not gonna happen anytime soon.

It's funny, Kami... I have never suggested that BFCA is a better event or that its membership has better taste than HFPA. If you think I have, please cite the comment. I certainly didn't say anything like that in this post.

OF COURSE, BFCA is out to score as a precursor. OF COURSE, that's all HFPA really cares about.

My take has been and pretty likely always will be that the season is a form of insanity and that the hypocrisy around HFPA, which BFCA is not worthy of yet, is that every outlet writes about how shitty and self-serving the group is (in December) and than treats it like the holy grail in January.

I think you've been carrying around some BFCA bug around in your ass for a while and it just crawled out.

HFPA is not worthy. It has a network TV show. But the group is small, the membership legitimacy is not transparent, and it is given too much play.

BFCA is somewhat more legit, being as there are more than twice the members, complete membership transparency, and no demands on the industry for personal attention in order to realistically qualify for the Critics Choice Awards. (Note: I have nothing to do with BFCA's award show and the only real leadership position I have ever taken in the group is when we worked together on local screenings.) The cost to the studios to indulge the HFPA - indulgences which lead to virtually zero media coverage from members... only towards nominations - are significantly higher than with any other group, including The Academy, because talent must be involved, post-screening parties must be given, and no other groups may be included in the events.

If you really think that HFPA does not whore itself and try desperately to appear to be The Only True Precursor to The Oscars, than you are delusional. Yes, they whore out for stars they like too... like Carrey, who has deserved better from The Academy. But the only reason talent shows up for The Golden Globes is because it is seen as the one place you have to be seen before the Oscars. (BFCA less so... which is why there have been a few key absences each year.) If that air of necessity is lost, talent stops showing and soon, they lose their TV slot. And then, all the perks end. Get it?

I don't think GG and Oscars are really comparable. Their aims are really different, so your enjoyment depends on what you are looking for in an awards event. Why is the Academy's opinion the end all, be all? No one talks about the MTV awards in terms of the Grammys.

Mr. Poland, I see your point. All movie precursor awards fold into Oscar in a slavish way. All I'm wondering is why Oscar is still viewed as so relevant and prestigious. They were created to manufacture that allure, so are we buying into it by caring or is there is really some substance to saying the Academy thought my work was the best in my field from the past year?

I never said the Globes don't wanna be seen as precursors (all 4 acting awards from the Oscars won at the Globes too) but you seem to think that it's a BAD thing that the globes don't go out of their way to be precise Oscar predictors. As somebody up there said, they wouldn't award Jim Carrey and Madonna if that's all they wanted. Hell, they wouldn't have a musical/comedy category if they wanted to do that. It's just sounds so strange to me that an awards body that nominated Match Point, A History of Violence and The Constant Gardener for Best Picture is being ridiculed because it DIDN'T nominate Crash or Capote or Munich. Woopdeedoo.

The BFCA bugs the hell outta me, yes. It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't seem to parade around the fact that most of their winners go on to win at the Oscars. Wow, they sure did drop the ball on THAT one this year didn't they! Same with every other organisation.

Spy magazine (R.I.P.) exposed the Oscar scam 11 years ago . . .

Play a cripple, win an Oscar

Play a junkie, win an Oscar

Play a retard, win an Oscar

Possible last role, win an Oscar

The last few years Oscar has been elitist and self-centered. And the Liberal Media wonders why all that Oscar Bait aren't big hits!

I guess we bucked the trend this year:

Gay writer

Country/folk singer

Fat CIA guy (probably you should add "gain/lose weight" to the list)

Political activist

I could care less because I'm never watching the Oscar's again. After Brokeback's loss it's hard for me to take them seriously.

It's more like "After Crash's win" for me...

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: