Golden Globes
As I sit here watching the Golden Globes I find myself wondering if there should be more of a criteria for nomination. What makes some movies "Globe" worthy and others not? I used to feel that there was such a high standard of merit and worth that needed to be met before a movie, show or actor to be nominated. Tonight, that high standard was thrown out of the window when Ugly Betty won 2 awards (thus far) as well as Devil Wears Prada also won some. Please don't get me wrong, I enjoy watching both of those things; however, I would never have put it in the same category as Blood Diamonds or Little Miss Sunshine. Is there a check list that something has to meet a certain number of in order to be nominated? I always felt that things nominated for this award would be different then the things that are nominated for The People's Choice awards. GG's are awards that go to movies not shown in Northern Michigan and to movies and shows that most of America doesn't watch because they actually talk about meaningful things and have real messages. How did these two things slip in this year? Is it because there weren't a lot of good movies this year? I actually thought the opposite was true; although, I am not often told that I have good movie tastes! Shouldn't there be higher standards?
posted by Kourtney @ 8:55 PM
5 Comments:
i agree. i too like ugly betty and devil wears prada but i did feel a little bit lost on some of the nominations because, like you said, we dont get a lot of the good movies "up north". in defense of the devil wears prada, i do support meryl streep's performance no matter how juvenile the movie was.
Any awards show that celebrates Borat is obviously worthy of our collective praise.
There are no critera other than what the people in the Hollywood Foreign Press feel like voting for. It doesn't have to be a "limited" movie or anything like that. Dreamgirls has grossed almost $70 million and The Departed grossed over $100 million, and that doesn't make the movies any less great. Plus movies should be judged on their individual merit, not on perception. Sure, Blood Diamond has a positive message, but that doesn't change the fact that it's too long, DiCaprio's accent is all over the map, and the love story undermines it's message. Sure, The Devil Wears Prada was more entertainment than message, but it does what it does really well, and isn't that what awards should be given for, rather than Good Intentions?
i'm not sure it's fair to say that for a movie to be golden globe-worthy it must also have a message. i unfortunately haven't seen most of these movies so it's hard to have a solid opinion, but there is a lot more to a good movie than the message behind it. also, you were happy to see grey's win an award--i'm going to go out on a limb here and say that ugly betty's message is a more powerful one (or at least more recognizable) than that of grey's anatomy (think about the acceptance speeches, they mentioned the "american dream" as well as inner beauty). so is it just movies that should have this kind of message requirement?
i agree i was unimpressed....
Post a Comment
<< Home