Quote:
Originally Posted by vfxproducer 
That's easy. It's a meaningless award voted on by a truly random group of foreign correspondents in Los Angeles. Think of them as a collection of “Access Hollywood” type knuckleheads from Belize, Serbia, and Dubai. They are impressed by style and hype, not substance More importantly, the members of the HFPA are notoriously susceptible to bribery in the form of being granted interviews with stars, sent on press junkets, and lots of gifts from agents such. Far more so than the membership of the Motion Picture or Television Academys.
The only reason people care about the Golden Globes is that the HFPA has carefully marketed it as a bellwether for the Oscars. It's basically the Iowa Caucus of the Oscars race.
That's easy. It's a meaningless award voted on by a truly random group of foreign correspondents in Los Angeles. Think of them as a collection of “Access Hollywood” type knuckleheads from Belize, Serbia, and Dubai. They are impressed by style and hype, not substance More importantly, the members of the HFPA are notoriously susceptible to bribery in the form of being granted interviews with stars, sent on press junkets, and lots of gifts from agents such. Far more so than the membership of the Motion Picture or Television Academys.
The only reason people care about the Golden Globes is that the HFPA has carefully marketed it as a bellwether for the Oscars. It's basically the Iowa Caucus of the Oscars race.
Seems like every year the HFPA baffoons vote in a show based only on 6 episodes. Last year, it was "The Walking Dead," (6 episode Season 1 that wasn't even great, but had killer ratings for cable). This year, sadly, it's the "New Girl."
Of course P&R is better than New Girl. Hell, "Happy Endings," (which New Girl ripped off in terms of general concept), is better than New Girl, as well as many other comedies.
