Filed under: Awards, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Newsstand, Politics

While sites like ours struggle to decide how, in fact, we're going to cover the Golden Globes, Deadline Hollywood tells us that a number of key decisions were made late today. Firstly (and probably the most important), SAG has officially announced that none of the actors or actresses will cross the picket line and attend the awards ceremony on January 13. That was an expected decision, but still one that kind of shocks you. However, DH claims NBC is still moving forward with preparations to air the make-shift ceremony on their network. With who in attendance? Got me.

The Hollywood Foreign Press Association issued the following statement: "The Hollywood Foreign Press Association has been placed in an extremely difficult position with the ongoing Writers Guild strike. We are making every effort to work out a solution that will permit the Golden Globes to take place with the creative community present to participate. We hope to announce a resolution to this unfortunate predicament on Monday." Personally, I'm not sure what the hell they're going to resolve by Monday, but I would expect NBC to fold and not televise the ceremony. How could they with no one showing up? And how ridiculous would it look if some fat studio exec was standing on stage, handing out award after award to folks who aren't there to accept them? This is what NBC wants the entire country watching? I don't think so.

Here's SAG's statement: "After considerable outreach to Golden Globe actor nominees and their representatives over the past several weeks, there appears to be unanimous agreement that these actors will not cross WGA picket lines to appear on the Golden Globe Awards as acceptors or presenters. We applaud our members for this remarkable show of solidarity for striking Writers Guild of America writers."

And here's the WGA's statement: "We are grateful to our brothers and sisters in SAG for their continued solidarity and support. The entire awards show season is being put in jeopardy by the intransigence of a few big media corporations. We urge the conglomerates to return to the bargaining table they abandoned and negotiate a fair and reasonable deal with writers to put this town back to work."

And here's Nikki Blonsky's statement: "Motherfu**ker son of a b*tch! This was my chance! You fu**kers!"

And here's Cinematical's statement: "We made up Nikki Blonsky's statement, but you have to imagine the poor girl is pretty pissed. Plucked from obscurity to star in Hairspray, nominated for an award, and she can't even show up. We feel you Nikki ... we feel you. Hug?"

Filed under: Celebrities and Controversy, From the Editor's Desk

So I've been watching this whole Britney Spears drama unfold today, and it got me thinking about the kind of biopics we'll be seeing in 10-15 years; the sort of stuff that will be based on the fascinating lives people are living right now. I hate to be the one who says this -- and as much as she's a total trainwreck, I still hope she pulls through -- but are we really that far away from waking up in the morning to TMZ breaking the news of Britney Spears' unfortunate death? Yeah, you've got Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton -- two giant headaches; there's no denying that. But Spears is in a league of her own. She's right there. She's on the verge of leaving this planet ... and it's almost like the media want her to die in some absurd way because they'll have their story of the year.

And then after she dies, MSNBC will run non-stop coverage (though it's an election year, so Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood will win out in the end), interviewing the editor of In Touch Magazine 30 times throughout the day, asking them this same question: How come no one was there to help this girl out? And while the editor from In Touch Magazine talks, they'll show the same music video montage -- Britney in a school girl uniform, Britney in leather, Britney at the VMA awards. Larry King will bring on her mother. Then her father. And if he's lucky, he'll get a pregnant Jamie Lynn. The trifecta! You go Larry! The film sites (including Cinematical) will try to find a way to spin the story in a way that announces which jackass first nabs her life rights for a biopic, and that will be it. The end of Britney.

Until the day comes for a biopic. And we run through the names of a few up-and-comers trying to decide who should play Britney. I'll probably write the post, and say something like -- "I vote for Lohan, since she already knows how to sing and could probably pull off a believable Britney." And how ironic would it be if that performance is what nabs Lohan an Oscar nod? Nah ... too soon. Too soon. Maybe Jamie Lynn would play Britney, in a fitting tribute to the girl who taught her how to have stupid sex at 16. But you know what? It doesn't have to go there. Now is the time for her f**king family to drop whatever sh*t is stored in that warehouse they call an attic and get this girl some help. Because when and if it ever happens, I want Britney to star in her own biopic. And I want it to end with her smiling at the camera, with her middle finger in the air, as she goes ... "See, I survived. And f*ck you Perez Hilton!" (Only the MPAA will ask her to remove the word 'f*ck' in order to get the film down to a PG-13 rating. And we'll probably write a post about it.)