I'm sure a lot of you don't care either way, but there's now a chance The Golden Globes ceremony scheduled to air live on NBC this January 13 may not show up on the boob tube at all. Anne Thompson reports over on her Thompson on Hollywood blog that word from within the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (or HFPA) is that one option -- should the writers still be on strike on that day -- is to not televise the ceremony in order to ensure a high celebrity presence. Call me a moron, but I'm not sure of the difference between televising an event and not televising an event as it pertains to "crossing the picket lines." Thompson's article makes it sound like actors are allowed to cross the picket lines if the Globes aren't televised, though I just assumed they wouldn't cross the picket lines regardless. Maybe I'm missing something though; feel free to clue me in.
As it stands right now, the Globes won't have any writers to pen those presentation speeches as the WGA has already turned down a waiver which would allow writers to work on the show. Additionally, it's believed that if the show was to go on as planned -- with the WGA out picketing in full force -- a good majority of actors and actresses would not cross the picket lines. Not televising the show, however, also brings into question what sort of contractual obligations HFPA has to NBC. As Thompson points out, "If the show is not televised, NBC will lose the revenue it would have generated via advertising (the Globes show earns strong ratings), and the Globes will lose the money they would have been paid. But at this point it is much more important to the HFPA (which has enough cash in its coffers to miss one year's telecast) for the Globes show to go on with celebrities walking down that red carpet (even with no writers to pen the presentation speeches) to present and accept awards than for them to face the possibility that most stars will not cross an active picket line."
What say you?