Golden Globes...not so golden
Jan. 13th, 2008 10:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
raloriaYeah, I watched them. It was more out of curiosity than any real interest. Since the show was reduced to just a news announcement it certainly didn't contain all the glitz and glamor of a normal awards show.
It was different, I'll give it that. It was boring and dull, but not in the usual sense. Most awards shows end up boring and dull because they drag on for hours. This time is was dull because all the life was sucked right out of the broadcast without the glittering stars there to partake in the celebration.
All that glitters is not at the Golden Globes via Canada's Globe and Mail
While part of me was disappointed to not have the whole, full blown show, another part of me could see the advantages of having a shorter broadcast. I figured I'd make a little list of pros & cons....and this is sort of for the Golden Globes & the Oscars, since they might have go through this next. Oh, and you'll notice a few that are on both lists.
Pros of a press-conference type of awards show
- No overblown production numbers
- No boring red carpet where everyone gushes over their designer dresses and jewelry and the guys just stand there and go "Yeah, I'm just wearing a tux"
- No boring/awful performances for "Best Song"
- No awkward opening monologues
- No overlong acceptance speeches
- No boring, stiff presenter skits
- The show ends on time
Cons of a press-conference type of awards show
- No acceptance speeches ('cause some people really deserve to have their moment up there on the stage to say thanks)
- No red carpet to see all the gorgeous dresses and jewelry
- No remembrance piece showing show who has passed away in the past year
As you can see, there's more pros than cons here. So how about a compromise? Cut out all things that don't work in a "normal" awards show broadcast and just keep it down to the stuff that really matters.
My suggestions...
* Red Carpet: Don't bother with people stopping the stars to ask what designer they used, etc. All you need is camera footage of the stars arriving and walking down the red carpet as they go inside. No delays, no stopping the flow (except for the stars stopping for the paparazzi as they snap photos). Just print the designer's name at the bottom of the screen for each dress and that info. is taken care of. Simple.
* No Host or if there is a host, keep their speeches to a bare minimum. Hosts work best when they're entertaining yet seldom seen. [The Golden Globes at least got this one right...they have no host.]
* Just have the presenters read the nominees & the winner. [I know, I know....I'm being bad here, because there are writers who come up with that stuff for the presenters to say. But honestly, I've rarely been impressed by any of that stuff. Just get on with it and tell me who's up for the award and who's won.]
* Have good quality & the same length clips for all the nominees: I've seen some good clips and then I've seen some real stinkers. Poor Anna Paquin tonight was given a poor one. All we got was a clip of a guy kissing her hand. Ooooh....way to show off those acting skills. The other nominees in the category got much better clips....with dialog!
* Avoid overlong acceptance speeches by using a tranquilizer dart: Have a guy off to the side, ready to fire if the winner is taking too long, etc. Have a handsome, muscular dude standing by the winner to catch them and voila'! The show might just end on time because of it.
(Okay...that last one is not a realistic suggestion. But you gotta admit, it's not a bad idea. ;P)
I miss the award shows of the past...when the host's job was to keep the show moving and the acceptance speeches were short, yet heartfelt and genuine. Today's award shows are so bloated, stiff, and boring, it's no wonder that most people are checking what time it is halfway through the broadcast. I sincerely hope the writer's strike reaches a satisfying conclusion soon, so that at least the Oscars won't have to go through a boring and lifeless broadcast that the Golden Globes had tonight.
It was different, I'll give it that. It was boring and dull, but not in the usual sense. Most awards shows end up boring and dull because they drag on for hours. This time is was dull because all the life was sucked right out of the broadcast without the glittering stars there to partake in the celebration.
All that glitters is not at the Golden Globes via Canada's Globe and Mail
While part of me was disappointed to not have the whole, full blown show, another part of me could see the advantages of having a shorter broadcast. I figured I'd make a little list of pros & cons....and this is sort of for the Golden Globes & the Oscars, since they might have go through this next. Oh, and you'll notice a few that are on both lists.
Pros of a press-conference type of awards show
- No overblown production numbers
- No boring red carpet where everyone gushes over their designer dresses and jewelry and the guys just stand there and go "Yeah, I'm just wearing a tux"
- No boring/awful performances for "Best Song"
- No awkward opening monologues
- No overlong acceptance speeches
- No boring, stiff presenter skits
- The show ends on time
Cons of a press-conference type of awards show
- No acceptance speeches ('cause some people really deserve to have their moment up there on the stage to say thanks)
- No red carpet to see all the gorgeous dresses and jewelry
- No remembrance piece showing show who has passed away in the past year
As you can see, there's more pros than cons here. So how about a compromise? Cut out all things that don't work in a "normal" awards show broadcast and just keep it down to the stuff that really matters.
My suggestions...
* Red Carpet: Don't bother with people stopping the stars to ask what designer they used, etc. All you need is camera footage of the stars arriving and walking down the red carpet as they go inside. No delays, no stopping the flow (except for the stars stopping for the paparazzi as they snap photos). Just print the designer's name at the bottom of the screen for each dress and that info. is taken care of. Simple.
* No Host or if there is a host, keep their speeches to a bare minimum. Hosts work best when they're entertaining yet seldom seen. [The Golden Globes at least got this one right...they have no host.]
* Just have the presenters read the nominees & the winner. [I know, I know....I'm being bad here, because there are writers who come up with that stuff for the presenters to say. But honestly, I've rarely been impressed by any of that stuff. Just get on with it and tell me who's up for the award and who's won.]
* Have good quality & the same length clips for all the nominees: I've seen some good clips and then I've seen some real stinkers. Poor Anna Paquin tonight was given a poor one. All we got was a clip of a guy kissing her hand. Ooooh....way to show off those acting skills. The other nominees in the category got much better clips....with dialog!
* Avoid overlong acceptance speeches by using a tranquilizer dart: Have a guy off to the side, ready to fire if the winner is taking too long, etc. Have a handsome, muscular dude standing by the winner to catch them and voila'! The show might just end on time because of it.
(Okay...that last one is not a realistic suggestion. But you gotta admit, it's not a bad idea. ;P)
I miss the award shows of the past...when the host's job was to keep the show moving and the acceptance speeches were short, yet heartfelt and genuine. Today's award shows are so bloated, stiff, and boring, it's no wonder that most people are checking what time it is halfway through the broadcast. I sincerely hope the writer's strike reaches a satisfying conclusion soon, so that at least the Oscars won't have to go through a boring and lifeless broadcast that the Golden Globes had tonight.
