In This Section
|
« WGA Post-Strike Watch: News About Returning Shows
NBC May Nix Globes Telecast, So the Show Can Go On
If an awards gala happens in front of no TV cameras, does it still make a noise?
With the Golden Globes scheduled to be held in a week and SAG recently announcing that no nominees would cross WGA picket lines to attend, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and NBC on Sunday engaged in eleventh-hour sessions to try to find a "middle ground" that would allow the show to go on. The Globes just might not be televised, or they may be scaled back in grandeur, or perhaps be postponed a week or two so that an interim deal can be arrived at.
Were NBC to pull the plug on the broadcast, the WGA would greenlight a star-studded red carpet. Under the postponement scenario, only a week or two of time could be bought, with the Oscar nominations fast approaching and the Beverly Hilton not exactly wanting for bookings.
According to the Hollywood Reporter, NBC is expected to make a decision today on whether to air the broadcast.
Related:
• SAG: Not a Single Nominee Will Attend Globes
• WGA: "We Will Be Picketing the Golden Globes"
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Jan 6, 2008 10:28 PM
|
|
Rewrite the Golden Globes into a reality show!
|
|
Jan 6, 2008 11:19 PM
|
|
I am so sick all this picket this show and not the other one. It sorta feels like the playground and people picking teams for kickball. Either you are on strike or not. Make up your mind. As for the Golden Globes I hope that they don't broadcast them. The whole point of a strike is to show that you are an important part of whatever you are striking against. If the show goes on and everybody dresses up and has a good time. How does that show that your cause is important?
|
|
Jan 7, 2008 12:57 AM
|
I agree chovie. I also don;t like the fact that the broadcasts of most award shows are more important than the awards themselves. The Academy Awards for one, were set up for people in the industry to recognize the achievements of their peers. It was a chance for them to let their hair down and be themselves and celebrate their work without the intruding eyes of the press and public to interfere and judge.
When the Oscars and other award shows began to be telecast it was understood that we, the public, were getting an inside glimpse of how showbiz folks acted in the company of each other. To see just how spontaneously amusing famous comedians could be, of hearing "serious" actors try to be funny and comic actors being serious, of hearing heartfelt stories of inspiration and the overcoming of adversity and, every now and then to see someone trip themselves up by being pompous and pretentious, these were the highlights of awards shows.
Now, truly candid moments with the stars are almost non-existant. The scripted banter, poorly delivered, the esxcruciatingly boring production numbers and the sweeping off of one winner to make way for the next have all made for some very uninteresting and unvarying broadcasts. And what was more ridiculous than the sight of Frank Sinatra being drowned out by the cutoff music as he was delivering what would be one of his last public speeches. Sinatra being drowned out and shunted aside by a group of musicians! I can't think of a better illustration of true irony.
The Academy,Grammy,SAG and Golden Globe Awards, at least, are their party, not ours. When we get to observe we are lucky spectators not directors. Having the Golden Globe Awards go forward without being broadcast is not only the right thing in terms of the strike, as chovie says, it is a chance for showbiz folks to get back to the original spirit of that type of award ceremony.
|
|
Jan 7, 2008 2:26 AM
|
Now, some more finger-wagging over TVGuide's reporting, or at least writing style. The use of the phrase 'NBC may strike' is particularly galling, as well as the implication that NBC actually controls all and may graciously deign to let them have their little party, noblesse oblige.
How about "If NBC Bows Out, the Show May Go On" for a little more neutral wording, please?
Though I gotta agree with the reality show comment.
|
|
Jan 7, 2008 4:06 AM
|
|
I don't think postponing the Golden Globes, and the Oscars for that matter, and hoping for either a settlement or an interim deal would be such a bad thing. Maybe those production companies could work something out like Letterman's Worldwide Pants did. I am a huge fan of movies and television. I personally love the award shows. I just enjoy them. I do like to see who wins and to hear their speeches. They are like my Superbowl. Although I do watch the Superbowl, too, I just don't enjoy it as much. I have an Oscar party and a pool. So, I will be very disappointed if something isn't worked out. I will also feel a little bit slighted as a fan. If it weren't for us tuning in or buying a ticket, they wouldn't have jobs. I think that it would be a nice gesture for them to work out a deal that made both sides happy for the award shows. I do understand that these are big money makers for the companies and it is something that can be used to try to get them to settle and I don't begrudge them that, but they should also keep in mind that they need us, too.
|
|
Jan 7, 2008 7:31 AM
|
If the writers and actors want to drive the viewers away, they can continue this selfish act as long as they like. Look, how long it takes the baseballs to recover after the strike.
The writers and actors may have many good reasons to demand better pay but when their actions have results in difficulty and inconvenience on others, they are no better than the producers whom the writers and actors have accused.
For those think they are doing a just cause, maybe at the beginning but now, you have just lowered yourself to the level of the producers. It would be better off for the writers to use their so called "creative" talents to come up with a reasonable solution!!
|
|
Jan 7, 2008 8:21 AM
|
|
I think the Oscars and the Golden Globes should be canceled entirely this year, broadcasted or not. What better way to panic all of the self-important Hollywood folks into brokering a strike deal then to take away their greatest coveted ego-strokers-- awards?
|
|
Jan 7, 2008 9:30 AM
|
|
Hush your mouth! I will be so sad! I know that they are hoping that it will cause them to settle quicker and I hope they are right, but this is the 80th Academy awards and it would be sad if it didn't take place!
|
|
Jan 7, 2008 10:08 AM
|
"NBC May Strike Globes Telecast" = NBC may eliminate its broadcast of the Globes. It's a play on words, and I'm fine with it. Please don't deprive me of my puns amidst all of this repetitive reporting!  - MWM
|
|
Jan 7, 2008 11:01 AM
|
|
I haven't watched these shows in years. Anyone know what their ratings have been like? Now that they are competing more with football will most people care if they aren't on?
|
|
Jan 7, 2008 11:32 AM
|
I got the joke actually, I just think it's in poor taste and leaning towards prejudicial.
How about: "NBC May Take Ball and Go Home: No Broadcast, No Globes."
Or you could direct readers towards Nikki's take on it.
|
|
Jan 7, 2008 11:36 AM
|
|
I care if they are on. And since I am most important, that is all that should matter. Ha-Ha!
|
|
Jan 7, 2008 11:53 AM
|
|
Since it seems to be a bone of contention, I guess the ratings are good enough.
|
|
Jan 7, 2008 11:55 AM
|
You mean to tell me that as long as NBC agreed not to broadcast the ceremony, the WGA would give a green light to the actors crossing the picket line and attend? This is penalizing the fans of the actors, actresses, tv, and movies nominated for a Golden Globe who want to see their favorite people and cheer on their favorite tv/movie. I think this strike has now gone to the level of being pathetic and I'm done with both sides!
|
|
Jan 7, 2008 12:42 PM
|
|
|
