Golden Globes: Reversal of Fortune

Conventional wisdom on the Hollywood Foreign Press Association is its members like to go glam with the nominations in the film categories - big stars, popular movies. Then, satisfied that they've lured the appropriate gaga celebrity quotient to lure a sizable TV audience (not to mention to party alongside afterwards), they get kind of serious in the TV categories, and honor - and even champion - good shows deserving of attention they may not be getting. (As opposed to the Emmys, where a sizable portion of the major nominees are already fairly successful shows, the Globes have honored "24" in its first, semi-struggling season, "Party of Five," prodding it to hit status, and the British version of "The Office" when most of Hollywood seemed unaware of the show.))

This year, however, major film nominees include "Babel" (running on fumes with just $17.7m in the bank), "Bobby" (stalled at $10.5m), "Little Children" (hovering at $2m after 10 weeks in theaters), "The Last King of Scotland" ($3.5m after 11 weeks), "Volver" ($2.4m but adding some theaters) and "Sherrybaby" (sank from sight, never to re-emerge). If one didn't know better, you'd think the HFPA were all about the work.

Hence, it's the TV nominations that feel like commercial concessions this year. The only nominal surprise in the nominees for Best Drama and Comedy Series is "Big Love," HBO's low-key exploration of polygamy. With the exception of "Heroes" and "Ugly Betty," the season's breakout hits, everything else has been nominated before, some multiple times. The Globes are becoming the Emmys.

Same with the lead acting nominations: Outside of "Big Love's" Bill Paxton, "Ugly Betty's" America Ferrera and Michael C. Hall, who plays a serial killer's serial killer on Showtime's "Dexter," everyone has been to the ball before (albeit Julia Louis-Dreyfuss hasn't been since "Seinfeld") or appears in a lot of photos in glossy magazines. Nominees include, variously, Patrick Dempsey, Ellen Pompeo (who even fans of "Grey's Anatomy" can't stand), Evangeline Lilly, Edie Falco, Hugh Laurie, Marcia Cross, Felicity Huffman, Steve Carell, Jason Lee, Kiefer Sutherland, Tony Shalhoub, Kyra Sedgwick, Zach Braff, Alec Baldwin, Patricia Arquette and Mary-Louise Parker, not a one of them who could be accused of being under-hyped.

Helen Mirren pulled off a hat trick, beating out Leonardo DiCaprio, Clint Eastwood, Toni Collette, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Emily Blunt - who all landed two nominations apiece. (Limiting the number of different nominees saves a little on the catering, means fewer logjams at the after-parties and means more wine during the ceremony for HFPA members!) Mirren's three were for the film "The Queen" (for which she must be considered the presumptive Oscar winner, since she's pretty much swept the critics awards, unless there's some sort of "Brokeback Mountain"-style backlash and people get so sick of hearing how she's going to win that they vote for someone else) and the two TV miniseries "Elizabeth I" (for which she's already won an Emmy) and "Prime Suspect: The Final Act" (for which she'll likely win an Emmy next year).

Series newcomers in the Supporting Actor/Actress categories (which also includes movies, miniseries and probably infomercials) were Masi Oka of "Heroes" and Sarah Paulson of "Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip." Oka's nomination is utterly understandable, as he's a huge part of that show's charms. Paulson, if you go by the assessments of her over on Defamer, not so much. If anyone from "Studio 60" was deserving of a nomination, it was Matthew Perry.

But don't get me started on the snubs. That's your job. Who do you think was egregiously overlooked in any category?