The reason is that they are not what they say they are or claim to be.
Very few of them are legitimate journalists. They do not represent the real foreign journalists who cover the US entertainment scene.
That they sometimes recognize worthy people and give money to charity does nothing to make them more legitimate.
Most regular posters here are far more qualified to make judgments on film and TV work. Yet if we formed a group and held a party, what would make us worthy of the supposed credibility this racket has?
I have to agree with EmmyNominee, I don't see why anyone would hate on this show...I mean the stars show up. They want to win this award and this show does matter, even the NY Times said that if a movie or actor wins here it does a lot of good toward Oscar chances. It's a process of elimination for voters too lazy to pay attention to every film being sent to them.
And yet year after year, everyone gets PO'd at their selections and calls them out for being fake...like every award show doesn't play politics...please.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Zembla,
The reason is simple. The 80-odd members of this group are not competent to assess movies and TV. They are mostly not professional critics, they are club whose membership is controlled by a clique at the top, and they have shown themselves over the years to have dubious ethical standards.
Any random group of Goldderby posters would be more qualified than this group of bozos, yet many people here still act like they are legitimate. They are not.
They still do a good job of recognizing TV and film that would be normally overlooked. The people who vote may on this may annoy people but, it still matters. If it didn't, it would get as much attention as The Satellites.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Zembla,
They get attention because they've been around a long time (when they, the NYFC and the NBR were the only groups), because they throw a good party, because Dick Clark Productions has a lot of money invested and because NBC broadcasts them. It has nothing to do with them having any legitimacy.
I agree with the Globes honoring performances, films, and shows that wouldn't normally get recognized. Take James Franco this year. Think he's getting nommed for an Oscar for Pineapple Express? Nope. What about In Bruges? The Academy won't even remember it.
The Globes may not have any legitimacy, but they bring deserved attention to movies and shows that people should know about.
Posts: 3790 | Location: Earth | Registered: April 11, 2005
I am comparing those who rationalize the GGs, who are a group of amateurs posing as journalists, because they pick a few good nominees to those who rationalized Mussolini because he made the trains run on time.
That should be clear to anyone who has a high school diploma.
I don't think it should be that deep. Although I can see why people get mad that The GG's are taken so seriously by the media and even academy voters. But they are on a major network and people pay attention, plus it's one of the more entertaining award shows to watch. Everyone's more loose and it's cool to see the mix of TV as well.
I've heard from a higher-up from the Academy that the main barrier to their loosening up the Oscars - such as making it a dinner with drinks and otherwise lightening up things - is that they don't want to be seen as being copycats.
If the GGs would go away, I really think the Oscars would be an improved show.
Originally posted by seanflynn: I of course did nothing of the sort.
I am comparing those who rationalize the GGs, who are a group of amateurs posing as journalists, because they pick a few good nominees to those who rationalized Mussolini because he made the trains run on time.
That should be clear to anyone who has a high school diploma.
I have a high school diploma, I have a college diploma, and I think that comment was extremely rude. You don't like the Globes, fine. I don't care. Don't make the ones that actually like the show feel inferior.
Posts: 3790 | Location: Earth | Registered: April 11, 2005
And I was offended by your suggestion that I was comparing the GGs to Mussolini. That also was very rude and very offensive. So please don't try playing that card - you went there first.
There was nothing in my post that said there was an equivalence between the two, and yes, if you have a college degree, I assume you know that. Thus my being upset.
I have nothing to apologize for. I stand by my point.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
I don't care if they are professional or not. There are no such things as professional or amateur critics. We're all critics. Some "amateur" critics I know were better than the professional Pauline Kael who hated 2001: A Space Odyssey and accused it of lack of imagination. I prefer to read the opinions of some "amateur" bloggers than Roger Ebert.
Posts: 245 | Location: Portugal | Registered: October 07, 2007
^