CBR: "Walking Dead" Nominated For Golden Globe
The smash hit AMC series based on Robert Kirkman, Tony Moore and Charlie Adlard's Image comic has received a nod in the "Best Television Series: Drama" category and faces some stiff competition.
Full article here.
No offence to anyone involved; and I can't be anything but thrilled for anything that's even remotely an attention magnet for the comics industry...
...but does anyone else feel greasy about this? That show was well WELL below the standards that viewers have come to expect from AMC. The script was cheesy, the acting was either wooden or melodramatic. I honestly could not be coaxed to care about these two-dimensional stereotypes of a cast even though they trotted out every corny bullshit mainstay of any drama club teenager's attempt to project humanity through what might as well be a menu choice on THE SIMS: SHITTY HOLLYWOOD DRAMA. A couple of guys who wear their hearts on their sleeves--and have the badges to prove it, those patriotic crusaders who have a you'd-have-to-be-blind-not-to-see-it-tragic-kerfuffle-in-the-making reunite after a devastating catastrophe to discover that all their relied-upon infrastructure is destroyed, their only allies are the ubiquitous rag-tag mish-mash of survivors who will never, ever get along yet inexplicably remain together...with it's gritty determination and patriotism in the face of hopelessness and it's housewife-cum-survivor motifs, it feels an awful lot like James Cameron kinda aping Sam Raimi's ridiculous Xena empire in the nineties: it's crap Hollywood done lighter-than- Hollywood.
I'm real happy for Robert Kirkman, and even more so for Image Comics who honestly do deserve attention.
They've really grown up, and there's much more to them than the zombie-movie-that-never-ends.
But there is lots better TV out there. Even at AMC. No kudos for RUBICON?
Rubicon finale ratings:
- 1.042 million viewers
- 0.7/1 HH
- 0.2/1 A18-49
Walking Dead finale ratings:
- 5.972 million viewers
- 3.4/6 HH
- 3.0/8 A18-49
Sucks for those that share your opinion, but there's the answer. Rubicon may have been great art, but bled ratings. It essentially failed as mass entertainment(which is not a diss on Rubicon, I missed it when it aired and only have the numbers to go by... the premise actually sounds interesting and I may catch it on DVD). The Walking Dead remained strong in ratings and went out with more viewers than it started with, so it gets the nod.
I can understand your frustration with The Walking Dead although I don't share it. I think they did a decent job of setting up the characters with the short episode run they had. Especially if you take into account the large ensemble and the fact they had to use this season to introduce the world as it is in the show. With only 6 episodes and an extra half hour to work with, I'll excuse a little cliche character shorthand. Next season, the show should benefit greatly from the a full run and most of the environmental introduction out of the way.
I agree with this somewhat, just see other posts of mine. The acting was at times very melodramatic and the lines were cheesy but there were moments when Walking Dead shined! Zombie attacks and for me seeing panels come to life on the screen was so intriguing. I often had my paperbacks out because I recognized a panel. When that happened it was fantastic.
Originally Posted by Loose Nucleus
It's not shit acting; it's just nothing great. The premise is strong enough to make up for it, though. The CDC episodes kinda weakened that foundation.
My understanding is that Golden Globes are ostensibly awarded due to artistic merit, not ratings.
Originally Posted by xnef1025