Powered by i.TV
November 24, 2014

The Golden Globes, or how to make me hate an awards show

by Jason Hughes, posted Jan 14th 2008 9:26AM
Nancy O'Dell and Billy BushSo Billy Bush and Nancy O'Dell got promoted from commenting in the Golden Globe post-show to hosting the entire show and presenting all the awards (actually recapping the winners since apparently the Hollywood Foreign Press Association did so earlier in a press conference covered by E! and TV Guide Channel). So not only does NBC not have an awards show, but they don't even get first dibs on announcing the winners.

First of all, does Billy Bush always wear his hair like that or did he leave his roof down in the convertible with his hair wet and gelled? It looks like a slicked back mullet, and that's not a look just anyone can pull off. In fact, no one can pull off that look. But it may have actually been a better choice than the brown suit. Sadly, though, the suit and hair was the least of the problems with last night's one hour Golden Globe "extravaganza."

I don't imagine any of us were expecting much from the stripped down special, but what we got was beyond pathetic. It reminded me of a low-budget episode of Access Hollywood. The network newscasts have higher production values. And how, if we have no speeches from anyone, do we still not have time to at least show snippets of acting during the announcements of all the acting categories?

The frenetic pace meant there was no build-up or anticipation between awards. No speeches means there was no chance to absorb what won and what didn't between awards. And not only did we have to endure the inane banter between Bush and O'Dell but they occasionally shifted scenes for a minute or so to two other morons who had nothing of value to say either.

Was there no one else available to take this gig? Bush and O'Dell clearly were not familiar with these movies or television shows, nor were they remotely qualified to comment on upsets and surprise wins (of which there were some). These guys talk about celebrity gossip and tabloid crap when they host Access Hollywood (nice that The Simpsons Movie clip name-dropped their show ... coincidence?). If there's no mention of Britney's hoo-hoo or Lohan's vehicular shenanigans they're flummoxed.

O'Dell's commentary after the Best Director award was "I think this is a huge surprise. Everyone thought that the Coen brothers, No Country For Old Men, was going to win. They've won countless awards already. Who would suspect anybody else would win this one?" She turned to look at Bush, who stared at the camera for a moment, and then realizing there was dead silence and that O'Dell had said something he clearly wasn't paying attention to because he could feel his hair falling a bit on his right side, turned to her and said "Good point." He then smiled back at the camera. O'Dell says, "Mm hmm," thinks "you freaking douchebag," and continues aloud. "We're moving forward now..."

I get that they didn't expect to have to do the whole show, and I get that maybe they weren't prepared, and of course that they didn't have writers, but did NBC factor into things the fact that it appears they're idiots. Witty banter is one thing but witless blather is painful to watch and we got the latter in spades.

When the show was over, I realized I would need to go online to see the list of winners so I could truly let it soak in. They're just wasn't enough time to appreciate them. And that means this steaming pile of TV turd was a failure in every sense of the word. They should have just done an NBC News special with Brian Williams reading off the winners. Still lame, but not painfully so.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

9 Comments

Filter by:
Age-K

Did anyone else notice that they seemed to find something wrong with or backhand-compliment just about every winner? The other sad thing was, whenever they went to commercials, I kept forgetting that we had it on NBC and kept thinking that we were on FOX...which is really sad for NBC. I'll admit I like watching the awards shows (well, the Oscars, Golden Globes, Emmys and Tonys) but I like to see the performances (especially at the Tonys) and hell, I'll admit it, I like the clip shows! There, I said it! Plus, you never know when something weird or funny will happen. Part of me wonders if they made this suck so totally royally because they wanted the people who think the awards shows should be shorter to realize that the way they're usually shown is still better than the crap we had to watch last night.

January 15 2008 at 1:22 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Rebecca

Rick said...
"My understanding has been that award shows could only be improved by cutting out the chaff of overblown production numbers and rambling speeches. Is the public this fickle or was this show, for all its brevity, truly bad?"

I vote for truly bad, but I agree about production numbers. Personally I could do without scripted quips too. As for rambling speeches, usually they are boring, but I still do like to see the winners accept their awards. Even the less famous ones. The Golden Globes speeches are usually a little more fun than the other shows because the attendees drink a lot during the ceremonies and there are some funny acceptances due to that. And they don't have the awful production numbers that the Oscars do.

January 14 2008 at 3:22 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
r.r.r.

the dialogue between nancy and billy was horrible. i don't know why they didn't just show the actual news conference of the globes. i only watch about 5 minutes and changed the channel.

January 14 2008 at 2:49 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Thomas

I can't believe anyone watched this. I got the results in 30 seconds online this morning, what could anyone think was going to be on it that would make the time devoted to it anything more than a waste?

January 14 2008 at 2:24 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Rick

My understanding has been that award shows could only be improved by cutting out the chaff of overblown production numbers and rambling speeches. Is the public this fickle or was this show, for all its brevity, truly bad?

January 14 2008 at 2:14 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Rebecca

The blather on the NBC show was horrible, I only stuck with it to see who won in certain categories and they skipped two of the ones I was interested in! I was under the impression that NBC was the official announcer on who would win. I wish I had known that the whole list was being read on CNN at the time.
I listened when it reran there later. The little comments muttered in the background by Larry King sounded like genius in comparison - despite the fact that he said (paraphrasing) "what a surprise that Daniel Day Lewis wasn't nominated" when the best actor in a comedy or musical was announced. (Hee!)

I knew the pair on NBC would be bad when Billy Bush yapped that Cate Blanchett was less deserving of the best supporting actress for "I'm Not There" because "she just pretended to be a boy". What an idiot!

When the NBC show skipped over "Best Performance by an Actor in a Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television" despite having done the one for Actress in the same category, I couldn't believe it. There were five outstanding performances far above the ones in the female category (IMO). Could it be that the male ones were all on cable while the female ones had a CBS one plus long time NBC star Debra Messing? In fact Billy Bush couldn't believe that Messing lost. It was the seventh time she was nominated, he noted, she deserved to win. (Huh?!?!?)

The official announcement, which CNN ran, was so very much better. Most of the announcers from various entertainment shows did a great job - except Mary Hart who hammed it up all the way through. I couldn't wait for her turn to be over.

January 14 2008 at 1:40 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Galley

Nancy O'Dell is FAFH! Hey, that rhymes!

January 14 2008 at 11:34 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Tammy F.

I second that! I usually love the Golden Globes, but they managed to suck out every single bit of joy from fiding out who the winners were. Lucky for me, I taped it, so after the first five minutes I just watched it on forward, to see who won, but I didn't have to listen. Please god, please don't do this to the Academy Awards.

January 14 2008 at 11:20 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
RadioScott

I dunno. The whole time I watched that, I thought that at least it wasn't as bad as the craptacular People's Choice Awards. I mean, last night's show was still bad, but it didn't meet the new standard of suckitude set by the PCAs.

January 14 2008 at 10:56 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Follow Us

From Our Partners