Why The Golden Globes Suck
Posted by admin on January 22nd, 2010
This post is influenced directly from overhearing someone say the other day “‘The Hangover’ is a great film because it won a Golden Globe.” Sure, ‘The Hangover’ may be fun to watch, and it did indeed win a Golden Globe, but it’s not a great film. So what is a Golden Globe? What does winning one actually mean? Why does a certain movie or TV show win a Golden Globe? You’ll find all the answers here, and once you realize what’s actually going on, you’ll see how The Golden Globes really work and ultimately why they suck.
The Golden Globes have recognized the “best” films annually for over 67 years now, and though they receive enough attention to convince the biggest celebrities to attend, they have a bogus voting and nominating system. The awards show looks childish to Hollywood when compared to the Academy Awards and with a majority of the 82 voting members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) being celebrity gossipers opposed to actual film critics, winners of a Golden Globe shouldn’t be taken seriously.
It’s time to think of The Golden Globes as a beauty contest. Despite the actual foundation of the film, if a movie is popular, it’s going to be nominated for a Golden Globe. This is because a film that’s nominated isn’t recognized from a technical standpoint like it is when being considered for an Academy Award, it’s considered if the movie/TV show has grossed a certain amount of money or if a certain movie/TV show is in need of publicity and the publisher has bribed the HFPA with gifts and cash. Don’t believe me? Search around, there are hundreds of news articles with different sources for evidence talking about bribes given to the HFPA in return for an incredible amount of publicity through a nomination at the awards show. Even check out this post while you’re at it.
If you look at a film that was either nominated or more importantly actually won a Golden Globe, then you can see side-by-side that it had some impact on the entertainment industry of the year it’s nominated for. Here are some examples:
Avatar: Grossed over $1 Billion in Box Office ticket sales. This is only the fifth film in history to accomplish this and it happened in the first few weekends. Won Best Picture Drama at the Golden Globes.
The Hangover: Became the highest grossing R-rated film ever. Won best Picture Comedy at the Golden Globes.
James Cameron: One of the most talked about names of 2009. One of the first to spend 300 million on a single movie. Won Best Director at the Golden Globes.
You can do this with each and every winner of a Golden Globe.
So what does this mean? Well, if you hear of a movie breaking box office records or a TV show that is getting amazing reviews from magazine and internet blogs, then you’ll hear about it at next year’s Golden Globes. If you don’t hear of a movie breaking records or becoming incredibly popular, then you probably won’t hear of it at the Golden Globes. The Hurt Locker is an example this year of a movie that a lot of people didn’t know about when it first came out that was still nominated, but its DVD/Blu-ray sales and rentals were through the roof.
Sure, popular movies also make it to more serious awards shows such as The Academy Awards, but movies that did terribly compared to a “blockbuster” still get nominated for an Oscar. Why? Because they are great films in all the different areas. For example, ‘Lost In Translation’ with Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson was nominated for best picture in 2003. It grossed a measly 44 million worldwide compared to Avatar’s current holding of 1 billion. Not everyone saw it in the theaters, but it was still nominated.
Though the tone of this post toward the Golden Globes has turned out to be pretty negative, to give it some credit, there are still some positive to say about the show. For one, production companies that have money and good offers that put out a movie that hasn’t received much exposure, can try their luck with the HFPA and possibly even get nominated if the price is right. Though that may be cheating in your eyes, if you look at the Golden Globes as a popularity contest rather than a “Best of” show, then it may be more accepted. The HFPA also donates a lot of money to schools and film programs to make sure that the film industry lives on, which is a good move on their part and maybe you’ll hate them slightly less because of that. There you go, HFPA, there’s a little good in you.
Just please, don’t think that a movie is amazing because it won a Golden Globe. Sure, it may be good, it could even be great when it became popular and therefore nominated because it was good, but you should probably wait for the Academy Awards and see what they have to offer before saying things like “The Hangover is a great film because it won a Golden Globe.”
Tags: Academy Awards, Avatar, Bribes, HFPA, Hollywood Foreign Press Association, Movies, The Golden Globes
[...] Why The Golden Globes Suck | stuart piazza .blog [...]
Though over all the Golden Globes may be annoying, I think overall they are a positive thing. Donations to schools and organizations are important but it is a chance to recognize what movies were popular during the year. Notice I didn’t say the best or the most ground breaking. I mean come on the plot for Avatar wasn’t exactly anything original, i.e. Furn Gully. The awards though can be indicative of the path that the movie industry is currently taking and may possibly be moving in. So overall they serve a purpose, though yea in terms of really recognizing acheivement in the movie industry the Golden Globes kind of fall flat.
Buy:Aricept.Lipothin.Lasix.Female Cialis.Benicar.Ventolin.Nymphomax.Prozac.SleepWell.Wellbutrin SR.Lipitor.Amoxicillin.Advair.Zocor.Cozaar.Zetia.Buspar.Acomplia.Seroquel.Female Pink Viagra….