The 83rd Golden Globes are this Sunday, and while my counterpart Daniel Howat has already broken down what the film nominations signal for the Oscar race, the television side tells an equally fascinating story, less about outrage and omissions, and more about where the medium currently stands as we bridge one Emmy awards year into the next. Rather than treating the Globes as a referendum on what was “snubbed,” this year’s nominations feel more like a temperature check on the television landscape: which shows still have momentum, which are solidifying themselves as long-term contenders, and which new series are positioning themselves early for the 2026 Emmy conversation.
What’s immediately clear is that the Globes continue to function as a transitional body, rewarding late-breaking prestige, reaffirming the staying power of recent Emmy players, and occasionally throwing curveballs that reflect shifting tastes rather than strict consensus.
One of the clearest takeaways is how strongly this year’s Emmy contenders have carried over into the Golden Globes conversation. Emmy Award-winning shows like “The Studio,” “Severance,” “Adolescence,” “The White Lotus,” and “The Pitt” have carried over; their continued presence (or at least visibility) here reinforces that they’re not done shaping the narrative. In particular, “Severance” and “The White Lotus” feel less like returning champions and more like modern institutions, series that voters instinctively rally around as benchmarks for prestige television. Even when individual performances don’t show up exactly where expected, the shows themselves remain firmly embedded in the awards bloodstream heading into the next cycle.
At the same time, the Globes are adopting new shows, just as they always do. “Pluribus” landing in Best Drama Series despite only six of nine episodes airing underscores how much trust voters place in established auteurs. Vince Gilligan’s reputation alone seems to have carried the show across the finish line, suggesting that the Globes are increasingly comfortable rewarding potential as much as completion. Recent Critics Choice Award winner Rhea Seehorn’s long-overdue nomination further supports that idea: this isn’t just about the show’s first season, but about years of goodwill finally cashing in. It’s hard not to read this as a reminder that sustained critical respect still matters, and can eventually pay off.
That same openness extends to performances, elevating uneven material. Helen Mirren’s nomination for “MobLand” and Amanda Seyfried’s recognition for “Long Bright River” both point to a voting body willing to single out acting even when the series itself hasn’t fully broken through. In a television landscape more crowded than ever, this kind of selective recognition suggests the Globes are less rigid about “package deals” than the Emmys tend to be. Star power still matters here, but not cynically; it’s being used as a lens to spotlight individual work that might otherwise be lost in the churn of content.
Comedy, too, appears to be benefiting from this. Glen Powell’s nomination for “Chad Powers” reflects a growing comfort with shows that blur genre lines and embrace oddball sensibilities. It’s not a traditional prestige comedy, nor a critic-proof juggernaut. Still, it signals that Globe voters remain interested in cultural buzz and personality-driven performances, especially when they feel slightly unexpected from their leading stars. That kind of recognition can often be an early boost for shows hoping to gain Emmy traction later, once broader industry consensus has time to catch up.
Even when familiar names or shows don’t appear exactly where one might expect, the larger picture suggests less rejection than recalibration. The sheer density of acclaimed drama, across genres, platforms, and formats, means that absence often reflects competition rather than dismissal. In that sense, the television categories feel less like a closed gate and more like a rotating door, with momentum, timing, and narrative playing just as significant a role as raw quality. Take for example, Tom Pelphrey in “Task.” I’d like to blame the announcement of a second season, which pushed “Task” from Limited Series to Drama, into the Globes’s voting body skipping over Pelphrey’s performance of Robbie Prendergrast, the morally-conflicted father who will do whatever it takes to provide for his family, but that just isn’t true. Seeing how they nominated Pelphrey’s counterpart, Mark Ruffalo, in Best Actor, attention was paid toward show, but it appears that Globe voters decided to copy/paste from the Emmys. Four out of six of the Best Supporting Actor nominees were nominated at the 2025 Emmys, and the other two are from Globes-loved shows: “Adolescence” (Ashley Walters) and “The Morning Show” (Billy Crudup). It would’ve been nice to see the voting body recognize some differing performances from shows that missed the Best Drama Series nod, but I guess there’s always next year.
Ultimately, this year’s Golden Globe television nominations reinforced what many already know: Emmy awards season is never neatly siloed. The line between “this year’s contenders” and “next year’s Emmy players” is blurrier than ever. Shows are building reputations over multiple seasons, voters are responding earlier to creative confidence, and star-driven performances can still punch through even when consensus lags behind. If nothing else, the Globes remain an imperfect but revealing snapshot of where television is headed, and who’s already positioning themselves to lead the conversation in 2026.
What stood out to you most in the Golden Globe television nominations? Which shows do you think are best positioned to carry this momentum into the next Emmy race? Please let us know your thoughts on our X account. Click here for more upcoming awards season dates, here for the most recent tally of awards season winners, and here for our current Oscar predictions.
