Golden Globe Awards 2008

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
joyfulgirl said:
:up: When that category came up I thought to myself, if the Globes have any shred of integrity whatsoever, the award must go to Cotillard although I personally think it was in the totally wrong category. It should have been best actress in a drama. It wasn't a frigging comedy or a musical!

I know. That pissed me off. Just because someone is portraying a musician and there is music involved does NOT make it a musical.

I think someone else got robbed because they stuffed that into the wrong category.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
they really need to put this writer's strike to bed before the oscars.

I don't even know why you need writers for awards shows. I think the GG did a great job with what they were there to do - give out awards.

Do I need a writer to tell me how to say: "And the winner is...."?
Is it a problem for the host to say: "good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to this year's golden globe ceremony"? Does he really need the words put in his mouth?

I say the Oscars should go on regardless of the strike, why do they need writers? It's not like a television drama series that requires a script or something like that.

Anyone can get on stage and say thank you.....and bash George Bush....

:lol:
 
AchtungBono said:


I don't even know why you need writers for awards shows. I think the GG did a great job with what they were there to do - give out awards.

Do I need a writer to tell me how to say: "And the winner is...."?
Is it a problem for the host to say: "good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to this year's golden globe ceremony"? Does he really need the words put in his mouth?

I say the Oscars should go on regardless of the strike, why do they need writers? It's not like a television drama series that requires a script or something like that.

Anyone can get on stage and say thank you.....and bash George Bush....

:lol:

They need the writers so they can write that uncomfortable banter presenters so often have to stumble through. Also, whoever is hosting has to have writers for their monologue and various other cheesy jokes.
 
LarryMullen's_POPAngel said:


They need the writers so they can write that uncomfortable banter presenters so often have to stumble through. Also, whoever is hosting has to have writers for their monologue and various other cheesy jokes.

I agree on that but most of the time the banter is stupid and the jokes are lame....right? lol.

I could write an entire monologue for the MC and I'd even do it for FREE....lol.
 
I'd still rather sit through a 4-hour telecast full of dull moments or awkward teleprompter readings than a lame one hour podium-reading by two annoying hosts.
 
corianderstem said:
I'd still rather sit through a 4-hour telecast full of dull moments or awkward teleprompter readings than a lame one hour podium-reading by two annoying hosts.

Nancy O'Dell's arms were orange. It was distracting.

Billy Bush... fuck.
 
corianderstem said:
I'd still rather sit through a 4-hour telecast full of dull moments or awkward teleprompter readings than a lame one hour podium-reading by two annoying hosts.

:yes:


elfa - :lol:
 
Having to choose between watching Billy Bush, Ryan Seacrest, and listening to Larry King's inane commentary was like choosing between contracting syphillis, cancer, and AIDS.
 
corianderstem said:
I'd still rather sit through a 4-hour telecast full of dull moments or awkward teleprompter readings than a lame one hour podium-reading by two annoying hosts.

But isn't the whole point of the evening to give out awards?
If they can save the money, and do the whole thing in an hour, what's the harm in that? The nominees STILL get the awards - isn't that the important thing?

Who cares about the red carpet and running gags?
 
AchtungBono said:
Who cares about the red carpet and running gags?

Some of us find it entertaining.

If you don't, that's fine - you can skip the broadcast and find the winners online, or in the news.

And saving money? You do realize we're talking about Hollywood, right? I don't think "saving money" is anything they particularly care about.
 
I hated the fact that the actors were at home watching it on TV (or so I thought at the time) and after learning that they'd won had to endure the ensuing vacuous commentary about what a surprise that was because someone else was favored, or that it wasn't even their best performance, etc. I kept hoping they didn't hear because they and all their friends were jumping up and down screaming. And because Billy Bush and Nancy O'Dell were so annoying (I, of course, having never heard of them and wondering why they are on TV), I kept changing channels trying to find the "official" Golden Globes announcement show, convinced I was watching the wrong thing. I found the whole experience very confusing. :huh: I have since learned I should have been watching the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn. press conference on some other channel earlier in the day. :mad:
 
Last edited:
corianderstem said:


Some of us find it entertaining.

If you don't, that's fine - you can skip the broadcast and find the winners online, or in the news.

And saving money? You do realize we're talking about Hollywood, right? I don't think "saving money" is anything they particularly care about.

You're probably right.......
 
Back
Top Bottom