I'm just finishing up school so I'm just happy I have a TV that works. Go Bucs

A few comments about the show

1) As someone else mentioned Sharon Stone was definintely on something..I think she had a few too many martinis b4 she went on..I guess that's what happens went an actor doesn't work in 5 yrs they hit the bottle again

2) What's up with that "look" Elton John gave Brendan Fraser when he was announced..It looked liked the Rocket Man wanted to go postal on his ass

3) Nicole we all agree your a beautiful woman but for god's sake get a tan once in a while!..Your a little too pale IMO

4) Lara Flynn Boyle there are people starving in africa who look healthier than you do!. I suggest you get rid of the coffee and cigarettes and try some meat and potatoes instead!..

No wonder your off/on again boyfriend Jack likes to go to bed alone. I think he's afarid you might snap in half if he cuddles next to you!!

5)Gandolfini as Tony would say lose the Fu***'n beard..It looks awful!

Overall a pretty decent show

I agree WTF was Lara wearing, kind of reminded me of that zombie ballerina from "Day of the Dead".

"Scrubs" crossed my mind as well, considering last week's episode kind of had everything, humour, pathos and a song to boot - by far one of the most creative shows on network tv.

Robin Williams' daughter is gonna look so hot in a few years!

thought it was kinda funny cuz she looked a little embarassed
with her dad during Dick's preshow interview cuz Robin was again
trying really hard to be a clown

My guess is that Gere will be up for Supporting Actor and Jones will be up for supporting actress. Also think that is why Rene won over Jones last night...most thought Jones was not a lead role.

I am still of the opinion that network TV shows are hamstrung by the sex/violence/language restrictions, and that gives cable shows more of an edge, and garners more interest by the voters.

It's just not a level playing field (network shows vs. cable shows) in terms of content.

Uh, uh, uh - NO.

Gandolfini never in his life looked hotter. (And if anyone has any stills of the bearded man in a tux from last night, I shall forever be in your debt if you'd post them.)

My biggest gripe with Chiklis winning the award was that I wouldn't be able to see "my James" up on stage with that woofy full beard.

Other than that - the Golden Globes were a farce as usual.

"Monk?" "Jennifer Aniston?" "Richard Gere?" "The Hours?"

Oh please.



And I just generally have to disagree about the quality of films for this past year. For me, it's been one long, dreary spell of movies that almost worked, but which for some reason or another fell apart - either through the hubris of the director or the failings of the players.

GONY? - felt like a series of outtakes from Speilberg's "Hook," only Daniel Day Lewis' performance and a few brilliant tracking shots saved this otherwise sprawling mess of a historical piece

The Hours? - soon to be listed under the dictionary entry for "pretentious;" just an all-around over-wrought piffle with nothing to say on any level about anything whatsoever

Adaptation? - the deconstructionist masturbatory fantasy of every would-be screen writer that boils down to a single exchange of telling dialogue:
Cooper: What's come over you?
Orlean: Well you just came all over my chest (snort, giggle) . . .

For me - and I stress, for me, this was one of the worst years for film in quite some time.

• Quoth Patman •<HR SIZE=1>I am still of the opinion that network TV shows are hamstrung by the sex/violence/language restrictions, and that gives cable shows more of an edge, and garners more interest by the voters.

It's just not a level playing field (network shows vs. cable shows) in terms of content. <HR SIZE=1>

It's a level playing field; the networks are just too afraid to take chances. They force themselves to be ruled by an inaccurate Nielsen system and back themselves into a corner with advertisers because of absurdly high production costs. They also commission too many pilots and then bail on their investments in an attempt to catch "the next [insert fad here]." Add to that some pretty bloated management situations, and they're hamstringing themselves. They could just as easily lower their costs and put more compelling shows on the air, but their eyes are $$$ with reality shows. I don't want to hear the networks complaining that the system is unfair to them, because they've dug their own holes themselves.

das

I don't buy it.

It's all about what can be shown on network TV over cable TV.

To try to level the field with the "follow the money" argument at its basic form doesn't do either "types" of TV any good in determining "quality" TV. I fail to see how you can lump both network TV and cable TV programming into the same pot and not be affected by the amount of S/V/L that is on display with the cable TV shows over the network show.

Sure, network shows are tied to the ratings and advertising dollars, but if you took away the S/V/L restriction (i.e. have advertisers with balls to put up the money), the line between network TV and cable TV programming would blur quite well, and only then you'd get a level playing field.

Curb Your Enthusiasm would not be the show it is if it had to deal with the network censors, nor would The Sopranos, The Shield, Sex and the City, Six Feet Under, etc.

Or put it another way, if you had to pay for the same current programing (same amount of S/V/L) on NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, UPN, WB, would you subscribe to those channels as you would Showtime/HBO/etc? Let's throw out a figure of $10/month for each network channel?

I would not. Even if there were commercial free.

Does anyone have any stills for Jennifer Connelly or Laura Linney? (who I don't think anyone has mentioned - she looked beautiful, imo)

• Quoth Patman •<HR SIZE=1>It's all about what can be shown on network TV over cable TV.

Sure, network shows are tied to the ratings and advertising dollars, but if you took away the S/V/L restriction (i.e. have advertisers with balls to put up the money), the line between network TV and cable TV programming would blur quite well, and only then you'd get a level playing field.
<HR SIZE=1>

Ah, but see you've hit my point right there. The restrictions are self-imposed because they want the highest possible advertising dollars to cover their bloated production costs. Someone needs to pay for all those Friends. Cable networks have lower costs and therefore can afford to air a program with Mike's Hard Lemonade as the prime sponsor.

Network television has chosen to restrict themselves to maximize the mainstream audience emphasizing money over quality. You're absolutely right ... cable TV provides more provocative programming. But it's not an unfair system; the networks have simply chosen to go another direction ... and that direction often means a lack of quality. As I said, they've created this situation for themselves. They could level the playing field anytime they wanted ... they just choose not to.

das

If I could get a guarantee that they are showing new epsfor a good six months straight and then showed the reruns in order, I would think about it. Particularly for shows like:
Scrubs
Andy Richter Controls the Universe
That 70s Show
The Bernie Mac Show
Friends
Ed
Gilmore Girls
Smallville
Third Watch
NYPD Blue
E. R.
Alias

I would also watch Dave and Conan occasionally...

I didn't watch the show, but I just checked the awards list! Major props to the people who voted for Tony Shalhoub for best lead actor in a comedy series. I wish I would have watched the show last night. He is one of the most underrated actors on television right now.

The network choices don't allow them to offer the provocative programming. That's the crux for the "quality" of a show in many voter's minds, unfortunately.

Her boobs are back! (or front!)

Too much eye-makeup.

a nice full body shot would be better.

Jennifer has beautiful legs...

The networks are not restricted by regulations, they are totally pointed towards the economics. For the networks, they need to make their money and there is no room for a show that will bring prestige if it lags behind.

If you compare FX's The Shield with ABC's Once and Again (or China Beach or Sports Night or...well, you get the picture). All of those ABC shows were recongnized for their high quality (just like The Shield) and I would venture a guess that, from a production standpoint, The Shield is more expensive to produce then either Once and Again or Sports Night (guessing China Beach would be in the same ballpark or higher if it was being made today). Ratings wise, I would also say that the ABC shows doubled if not tripled the viewership of The Shield. Yet ABC cancelled all those shows while The Shield is considered a great success by FX. ABC could have the prestigious show, but they choose to air four seasons of Two Guys, A Girl and a Pizza Place instead. ABC had shows that were cutting edge, ahead of the curve, but they chose not to participate in the quality derby.

Yeah, but in comparison to how she looked at the Oscars last year, she looked really good last night. She looked as if she put on a little weight, and just healthier overall. At the Oscars, she was starting to look almost anorexic.

Thanks for the pic GuessWho...no Laura Linney?

With Bono's F bomb, I hope Bravo doesn't bleep it next saturday when they re air it.

They bleeped Bono on the west coast.

And Harrision Ford pernounced it adaption, instead of Adaptation

Rypro, it's not like you haven't heard the "f bomb" before.