I don't really watch award shows, but why does this one exist? You have the Oscars for movies, and the Emmys for TV. Where does this one fit in? Maybe this is a sign that it's just not worth doing...
I don't really watch award shows, but why does this one exist? You have the Oscars for movies, and the Emmys for TV. Where does this one fit in? Maybe this is a sign that it's just not worth doing yet another one of these.
I realize that this is more of a rhetorical question, but to answer it, the Golden Globes are awarded by a different group: Golden Globes by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association Academy Awards...
I realize that this is more of a rhetorical question, but to answer it, the Golden Globes are awarded by a different group:
Golden Globes by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association
Academy Awards by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
Emmy Awards by the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences
The Golden Globes is really a counterpart to both the Emmys and the Oscars, but is quite a bit different in tone and methodology. In tone they tend to be a bit more lighthearted, and have quite a party atmosphere, whereas the Academy run events really focus on being serious, grand, prestigious, and perhaps pompous.
The method for choosing winners is very different. The Academy events are voted on by their constituents and there are thousands of voting members. The Golden Globes are voted by far fewer (in the low hundreds), and the voters are all journalists, not actors or directors or other academy members.
Whether or not we need both is an interesting question. I would say it is similar to asking questions like this:
Do we really need a National League when we have an American League?
Do we need to have Reuters when we have AP?
Do we need to have BAFTAs when we have Academy Awards?
These are relatively complex questions that don't necessarily have an easy answer.
I don't think it's something that we need to answer, the market is answering it as we speak. If there isn't anyone willing to foot the bill for another award show, then there's your answer.
I don't think it's something that we need to answer, the market is answering it as we speak. If there isn't anyone willing to foot the bill for another award show, then there's your answer.
I think that networks not finding enough profit in the Golden Globes because, even though it is profitable, it's not profitable enough, is sad. In general, it seems as if you and @devilized have a...
I think that networks not finding enough profit in the Golden Globes because, even though it is profitable, it's not profitable enough, is sad. In general, it seems as if you and @devilized have a bit of a Reductio Ad Capitalismus argument going on - if it is not financially viable, it doesn't deserve to exist. I think that in general that appealing to something commercial viability is not a good measure of its value.
I agree with this but it hinges on how you're defining value. I think there's a difference between discussing whether the Golden Globes deserve to exist and whether that necessitates a big TV...
I think that in general that appealing to something commercial viability is not a good measure of its value.
I agree with this but it hinges on how you're defining value. I think there's a difference between discussing whether the Golden Globes deserve to exist and whether that necessitates a big TV production financed by a 3rd party. The first part is a mainly sociological value, where the second is more economic value in my opinion. Awards can be prestigious, popular, and practical without a televised award show as shown by the Nobel Prizes. Though I admit comparing the Golden Globes to the Nobel Prize is verging on Ad Absurdum.
I don't think this universally, but I do think that it applies to entertainment in general. This award show, which overlaps with other similar award shows in the same industry, does not need to...
if it is not financially viable, it doesn't deserve to exist
I don't think this universally, but I do think that it applies to entertainment in general. This award show, which overlaps with other similar award shows in the same industry, does not need to exist. This isn't a public service, it's just a way for members of an industry to pat themselves on the back. So yeah, if every single TV network doesn't think it's worth the cost to air it, then there is indeed a value problem. The award show either needs to demand less money for the airing rights, or needs to figure out alternative ways of funding it if it's really that important.
The question was somewhat rhetorical, but having not watched these shows, it's interesting to here how the various organizations achieve these somewhat overlapping goals in different ways. That...
The question was somewhat rhetorical, but having not watched these shows, it's interesting to here how the various organizations achieve these somewhat overlapping goals in different ways.
That being said, I don't think the answer to the questions about "do we really need X when we have Y?" are all that complex. All of these things require money and support from viewers/consumers. Considering that this show can't find someone to host it on their network, which is an indication that there isn't enough support/revenue to pay for the show, then perhaps it's not really that important to be needed any longer.
It has more to do with the controversies that have plagued the organization behind the Globes (which has since been dissolved) that no one really wants to touch it. Pre-pandemic the Globes were...
It has more to do with the controversies that have plagued the organization behind the Globes (which has since been dissolved) that no one really wants to touch it.
Pre-pandemic the Globes were more consistent in viewers than the Oscar’s, staying steady at 20 million viewers compared the steady declining viewership of the Oscar’s. Even post pandemic, compared to other award shows, ratings aren’t horrible per se.
It’s just that these awards never recovered from the major controversies that took it off air in 2022 (though it still stayed influential to the industry).
Stuff like Globes and major critic awards influence the industry awards race in a way that the guilds and BAFTA is just representative.
Probably also worth looking at the vast number of literary awards that exist. In speculative fiction (SFF) alone, you have: Hugos Nebulas Locus BFA (British Fantasy Awards) Ursula K. LeGuin prize...
Probably also worth looking at the vast number of literary awards that exist. In speculative fiction (SFF) alone, you have:
Hugos
Nebulas
Locus
BFA (British Fantasy Awards)
Ursula K. LeGuin prize (this is pretty new)
That's not to mention some more specific ones like SPFBO and SPSFBO (self-published fantasy/sf blog-off) that are still pretty major.
So I don't think that having a couple major awards in film/tv is weird.
It's not having the awards its hosting the awards I think. It's making a big huge event with swag and celebs and putting it on TV and pre-empting whatever else is on. SFF awards don't need that...
It's not having the awards its hosting the awards I think. It's making a big huge event with swag and celebs and putting it on TV and pre-empting whatever else is on.
SFF awards don't need that level of attention. They're hosted by (and voted on) by members of a con or readers of a magazine, handed put with a press release, with a banquet, maybe web streamed these days. The Golden Globes could hand out their awards for (nearly) free. But they probably don't want that.
Why should anyone pay for it? I might be interested in watching an award show, but I see it basically as one long glamorous commercial for the movies of the past year. They should just stream it...
Why should anyone pay for it? I might be interested in watching an award show, but I see it basically as one long glamorous commercial for the movies of the past year. They should just stream it for free for everyone to see, and hopefully get people to go buy/rent/watch the movies being awarded. Isn't getting people to watch the movies the goal in the end?
The quote, "nobody wants to pay for it" is about the networks not wanting to pay for the rights to broadcast the show, not about viewers paying to see it. If the show is picked up, it will likely...
The quote, "nobody wants to pay for it" is about the networks not wanting to pay for the rights to broadcast the show, not about viewers paying to see it. If the show is picked up, it will likely be "free" to watch as long as you are subscribed to the network that is broadcasting it in some way.
I know, but why should a tv network pay for several hours of promotion? Usually it is the other way around. The movie industry can pay for getting its promotional content out there.
I know, but why should a tv network pay for several hours of promotion? Usually it is the other way around. The movie industry can pay for getting its promotional content out there.
That is true. Though that value is clearly gone now, so they might as well stream it online so they at least get some promotional value out of their show.
That is true. Though that value is clearly gone now, so they might as well stream it online so they at least get some promotional value out of their show.
I don't really watch award shows, but why does this one exist? You have the Oscars for movies, and the Emmys for TV. Where does this one fit in? Maybe this is a sign that it's just not worth doing yet another one of these.
I realize that this is more of a rhetorical question, but to answer it, the Golden Globes are awarded by a different group:
The Golden Globes is really a counterpart to both the Emmys and the Oscars, but is quite a bit different in tone and methodology. In tone they tend to be a bit more lighthearted, and have quite a party atmosphere, whereas the Academy run events really focus on being serious, grand, prestigious, and perhaps pompous.
The method for choosing winners is very different. The Academy events are voted on by their constituents and there are thousands of voting members. The Golden Globes are voted by far fewer (in the low hundreds), and the voters are all journalists, not actors or directors or other academy members.
Whether or not we need both is an interesting question. I would say it is similar to asking questions like this:
These are relatively complex questions that don't necessarily have an easy answer.
I don't think it's something that we need to answer, the market is answering it as we speak. If there isn't anyone willing to foot the bill for another award show, then there's your answer.
I think that networks not finding enough profit in the Golden Globes because, even though it is profitable, it's not profitable enough, is sad. In general, it seems as if you and @devilized have a bit of a Reductio Ad Capitalismus argument going on - if it is not financially viable, it doesn't deserve to exist. I think that in general that appealing to something commercial viability is not a good measure of its value.
I agree with this but it hinges on how you're defining value. I think there's a difference between discussing whether the Golden Globes deserve to exist and whether that necessitates a big TV production financed by a 3rd party. The first part is a mainly sociological value, where the second is more economic value in my opinion. Awards can be prestigious, popular, and practical without a televised award show as shown by the Nobel Prizes. Though I admit comparing the Golden Globes to the Nobel Prize is verging on Ad Absurdum.
I don't think this universally, but I do think that it applies to entertainment in general. This award show, which overlaps with other similar award shows in the same industry, does not need to exist. This isn't a public service, it's just a way for members of an industry to pat themselves on the back. So yeah, if every single TV network doesn't think it's worth the cost to air it, then there is indeed a value problem. The award show either needs to demand less money for the airing rights, or needs to figure out alternative ways of funding it if it's really that important.
The question was somewhat rhetorical, but having not watched these shows, it's interesting to here how the various organizations achieve these somewhat overlapping goals in different ways.
That being said, I don't think the answer to the questions about "do we really need X when we have Y?" are all that complex. All of these things require money and support from viewers/consumers. Considering that this show can't find someone to host it on their network, which is an indication that there isn't enough support/revenue to pay for the show, then perhaps it's not really that important to be needed any longer.
Ricky Gervais was pretty funny as a host. But I just watched his bits on YouTube.
It has more to do with the controversies that have plagued the organization behind the Globes (which has since been dissolved) that no one really wants to touch it.
Pre-pandemic the Globes were more consistent in viewers than the Oscar’s, staying steady at 20 million viewers compared the steady declining viewership of the Oscar’s. Even post pandemic, compared to other award shows, ratings aren’t horrible per se.
It’s just that these awards never recovered from the major controversies that took it off air in 2022 (though it still stayed influential to the industry).
Stuff like Globes and major critic awards influence the industry awards race in a way that the guilds and BAFTA is just representative.
Probably also worth looking at the vast number of literary awards that exist. In speculative fiction (SFF) alone, you have:
That's not to mention some more specific ones like SPFBO and SPSFBO (self-published fantasy/sf blog-off) that are still pretty major.
So I don't think that having a couple major awards in film/tv is weird.
It's not having the awards its hosting the awards I think. It's making a big huge event with swag and celebs and putting it on TV and pre-empting whatever else is on.
SFF awards don't need that level of attention. They're hosted by (and voted on) by members of a con or readers of a magazine, handed put with a press release, with a banquet, maybe web streamed these days. The Golden Globes could hand out their awards for (nearly) free. But they probably don't want that.
Why should anyone pay for it? I might be interested in watching an award show, but I see it basically as one long glamorous commercial for the movies of the past year. They should just stream it for free for everyone to see, and hopefully get people to go buy/rent/watch the movies being awarded. Isn't getting people to watch the movies the goal in the end?
The quote, "nobody wants to pay for it" is about the networks not wanting to pay for the rights to broadcast the show, not about viewers paying to see it. If the show is picked up, it will likely be "free" to watch as long as you are subscribed to the network that is broadcasting it in some way.
I know, but why should a tv network pay for several hours of promotion? Usually it is the other way around. The movie industry can pay for getting its promotional content out there.
The incentive for the network would be the opportunity to fill the ad space during the award program.
That is true. Though that value is clearly gone now, so they might as well stream it online so they at least get some promotional value out of their show.