Making Sense of the Insane Golden Globe Nominations

The Hollywood Foreign Press Association has lost its mind.  As you certainly have already heard, the Golden Globe nominations were announced today.  You can read the entire list of nominations here.  Now, I’ll leave it to others to critique the movie nominations. 

But the television nominations are a joke. It’s so absurd, I’m almost at a loss for words.  Let’s let E! Online’s Kristin explain to you just how crazy this is:

Either I didn’t slam enough espresso this morning for my very early morning call and was nodding off while the Golden Globe nominations were announced, or the following should-be shoo-ins were completely left out of the running this year:

• Lost
• Heroes
• Ugly Betty
• Desperate Housewives
• And even…the freaking Office!

Say it with me now: WTF?

And what’s more, save for acting nods to America Ferrera and Steve Carell, all the actors and actresses from these shows were completely shut out, too.

WTF, indeed.

Now, of course, I’m going to be an Ugly Betty homer – but how the heck do you not nominate The Office?  Lost? The ladies of Desperate Housewives?  Now, Kristin has a theory, and I agree with her analysis:

See, Globes voters are notorious for being all about hot new shows—preferably big-buzz and big-audience (read: network) new shows…Save for a possible nod for something or someone related to Private Practice (and really…meh), there simply aren’t any first-season comedies or dramas that jump to mind as having been royally snubbed. Yes, I love Gossip Girl and Chuck as much as the next guy, but they just aren’t the type of shows that normally get taken seriously by awards voters.

And Kristin adds this advice:

Perhaps it’s time for the networks to up their A game and get more competitive with cable. And maybe give show runners and writers more creative control, like they have over on the now-lauded cable nets, who appear to be kicking their keisters.

Just a thought.

If a show has to be new to get a nod from the HFPA, how the heck do you recognize perennial favorites like Seinfeld? As for network creative control… 

It’s possible.  But, this isn’t really the case with Ugly Betty, now is it?   Silvio Horta, credited as the show’s creator,  is a writer and executive producer of the show.  I’ve never seen any grumblings in the trades or elsewhere from Horta or Salma Hayek that the network nixed an idea or pushed the creators in any particular direction.

And it’s really a shame that Ugly Betty got no nods besides Ferrera (and how can you have an awards show lately without nominating America Ferrera?).  The show is “edgy”, but in a more mature way than many of the cable shows.  A good number of those (basic cable) shows remind me of a ten year old who has discovered mild curse words and says them over and over, just because he can.  The edginess has no substance behind it.  Ugly Betty covers some incredibly touchy and edgy material, but does it with such a playful, non-preachy spirit to the point that the less discerning might miss it entirely.  That’s subversive.  That’s ground-breaking.

Also, the show has come under fire from some because it has branched off in new directions.  The show could have played it safe, and continued along the same fish-out-of-water storylines, but the show would have become dry and tired, IMHO.  The additions of Gio and Cliff have added dimensions that keep the old storylines fresh.  In fact, both of those characters are so likeable, they could pull off their own series.

The fact that Michael Urie and Vanessa Williams were shut out, after all the snubs last year, is outrageous.  Urie has been spectacular this year, and Williams has been playing the foil with such abandon, she deserves recognition.

This is not to even mention the inexplicable snubs to The Office and Lost.

It’s getting harder and harder to take the Golden Globes seriously.

Source: Kristin