I think you guys are greatly overestimating their desire for big ratings. If they wanted hugely popular films and stars we wouldn't have seen the nominations they gave us. If the Globes were truly interested in rewarding things that got ratings and attention:
- "Mamma Mia!" and "Burn After Reading" wouldn't have been the only two of the ten Best Picture nominees that had grossed over $25 million. - "The Dark Knight" and "Wall-E" (the two best reviewed films of the year and two of the highest grossing) would have been nominated for Best Picture - The star-whorey and well reviewed "Tropic Thunder" and the big screen adaptation of the series the Golden Globes was disturbingly obsessed with ("Sex and the City") would have picked up nominations over microscopic films like "In Bruges" and "Happy Go Lucky" - We would have seen Scarlett Johannson in over her no-name costar in Best Actress (Comedy), Cate Blanchett in over Kristin Scott-Thomas in Best Actress (Drama), and more.
Of course the Globes star whore more than other awards but I was actually surprised by the lack of star whoring with this year's nominations.
- "The Dark Knight" and "Wall-E" (the two best reviewed films of the year and two of the highest grossing) would have been nominated for Best Picture
WALL-E could not have been nominated for Best Picture Comedy/Musical, because it was eligible for Best Animated Film. I do think you're right about the nominations, but when it comes to wins, they more than often go ga-ga for huge celebs.
In the TV drama categories, is there any chance they would go for Hugh Laurie and House? I know the Globes like to go for shiny and new, but they like Laurie, and House's 2 part finale last season was outstanding, and was ignored by the Emmys for the series and Laurie.
I have to agree with you on Julian Schnabel winning for best director.