Michael Starr

Michael Starr

Entertainment

No surprises from subdued Globes show

Now that the Golden Globes (star) dust has settled, it’s time to assess the “takeaways” from Sunday night’s awards ceremony.

But there’s not a whole lot to work with here — and that’s neither a criticism of NBC’s telecast or undue praise, but more of an “it is what is is” critique.

From a TV perspective, both as an entertainment and and industry commodity, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s annual glitterfest , known for its (supposedly) liquored-up, laid-back atmosphere, wasn’t so much a victory as it was a stalemate — neither overly controversial or buzzworthy, but a well-oiled production which ended spot-on-time (a plus for NBC) and (mostly) showed Sunday night’s awards winners in a positive light.

While the night’s major watercooler moments occurred before and after the telecast — E!’s WTF? pre-show “Fun Fact” graphic regarding Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s diagnosis, followed by Ronan Farrow’s scathing post-show tweet regarding his estranged father, special Golden Globes honoree Woody Allen — NBC will be thrilled if viewership for Sunday’s show is anywhere near what it was for the 2013 telecast, which pulled in 20 million viewers with co-hosts Tina Fey and Amy Poehler.

Fey and Poehler, who returned as hosts last night — and will be back again next year — were fine, if a bit subdued, and didn’t make anyone forget the ghosts of awards-show-hosts past (Bob Hope, Johnny Carson and the still-very-much alive-and-well Billy Crystal). To their credit, they didn’t go for the “shock” factor in their opening monologue a la their predecessor, Ricky Gervais, who tried to slay Hollywood’s sacred cows but fell flat on his face (several times, since he was asked back time and again).

And, through no fault of their own, Fey and Poehler, so popular and — yes, even beloved by many — were hardly on-screen very much. That was extremely odd, given all the pre-show hype bestowed upon them by NBC (and, let’s face it, the media in general). You could be forgiven if, having no idea who was hosting Sunday night’s show, you tuned in and thought there were no hosts, just a rotating roster of presenters. It was that noticeable.

NBC also used Sunday night’s Globes telecast to run endless on-air promos for Jimmy Fallon’s upcoming takeover of “The Tonight Show,” which he inherits Feb. 17 from Jay Leno. That was to be expected, but Fallon — who was on hand (natch) to present an award with Melissa McCarthy — didn’t do himself any favors with his unfunny, almost uncomfortable, appearance (a confusing bit in which he and McCarthy pretended that she’d been hit on the head, backstage, by a sand bag and now thought that she was Matt Damon). ‘Nuf said.

Regarding the actual winners, there were no huge surprises, save for Andy Samberg and his little-watched Fox sitcom, “Brooklyn Nine-Nine,” both winning Golden Globes — which makes one question the HFPA’s voting process, their taste, or both. It wasn’t game-changer either way for the telecast itself and, in its own small way, did give critics like yours truly something to get worked up about. So thanks, HFPA.

There is something to be said about a TV awards show which actually ends on time, as did Sunday night’s Globes telecast. Televised awards shows are notorious for running over their allotted time — yes, that’s you, Oscar — and with so many moving parts, and the live element thrown in for good measure, it’s no mean feat to produce a show that runs like clockwork. Despite many of Sunday night’s winners being “played off” the stage via the in-house orchestra (as said winners overran their allotted “thank you” time), Sunday night’s telecast ended at 11 p.m., as scheduled.

And that’s a victory in itself.