People tend to forget that the Golden Globes also honor TV. Those people evidently include the Hollywood Foreign Press Association; as I write, their main nominations web page includes only film noms. See their press release for the full list–scroll down, natch, for TV.
But TV is more central to the Globes than usual this year, if not for pleasant reasons. NBC is scheduled to air the awards next month, but the writers’ strike means that there will be no one to write the banter. (There’s been talk that the guild might give the show a waiver, allowing writers to work on it, but that would be a silly concession for a striking union to make.)
OK, fine: just get everyone a little drunker than usual, and the awards may be entertaining anyway. The other problem, though, is that actors may refuse to cross a picket line if the writers picket–and again, why in the world wouldn’t they? So NBC is facing two bad options:
(1) The awards don’t go on.
(2) The awards do go on — and are excruciatingly lame, or feature no stars, or feature plenty of stars, all of whom use their acceptance speeches to support the writers and bash NBC and the rest of its network peers in prime time.
Which is worse? I have no idea. But just for chuckles, let’s consider the actual nominations. The Globes are known for recognizing new shows quickly, and this year, Mad Men, The Tudors, Damages, Pushing Daisies and Californication all felt the love. (I’d have swapped out the latter, or Entourage, for Flight of the Conchords; but I’m not Hollywood, I’m not foreign and I’m barely press.) In addition, there was big love for Big Love, nommed for best drama–while The Sopranos, in its gold-watch season, was not. Lee Pace, Anna Friel and Rose Byrne were among the newbies noted in acting categories.
Well, if they can’t pull off a show on TV, maybe they can all get together and webcast it. Of course, there’s no money in the Internet, right, NBC?