From The New York Times:
“DAMAGES” may be all about Glenn Close as the she-devil lawyer Patty Hewes, but no one would ever sue her for not sharing the spotlight.
Now in its second season, the series has a gushing flow of talent: big names in major roles (this season William Hurt and Marcia Gay Harden have joined a returning Ted Danson) but also familiar faces in smaller parts. They’re rewarded by a project that’s not a huge hit, but which is intricately detailed and widely regarded as high quality. The show has become a haven for HBO alumni: the “Deadwood” star Timothy Olyphant is wooing Ellen Parsons, the lawyer played by Rose Byrne, while two members of the “Wire” ensemble — Clarke Peters (who played wiretapping ace Lester Freamon) and John Doman (the magnificently abusive police official William Rawls) — are reunited here as schemers battling Patty.
Among non-HBO stars, Darrell Hammond, the “Saturday Night Live” player who joined the series this year in a recurring role, plays every line with grim-lipped determination. Mario Van Peebles, an actor who’s also directed “New Jack City” and three “Damages” episodes, is a cynical F.B.I. agent who recently helped drive the series regular Uncle Pete (Tom Aldredge, a veteran Broadway actor) to attempt suicide. Another theater fixture, Philip Bosco, has returned as the bluff Hollis Nye, Ellen’s mentor.
[...]
The supporting character who may be the most intriguing, however, also has one of the smallest roles: Tom Noonan as the police detective Victor Huntley. In a TV world overrun by eccentric, all-knowing or all-screwed-up crime solvers — on shows like “The Closer,” “The Mentalist” and “Monk” — Mr. Noonan’s Huntley may be the most elusive, sly, down-to-earth cop in prime time.
I've watched every episode of Damages that's aired so far and I find it to be good, not great, and less good this year than last year. But like everyone else's opinion, my opinion is subjective. Even last year, I thought, it was a poor man's 24, using 13 episodes to arc out what could've been done better in six or seven episodes. Don't get me wrong, I still think it's a good show (just not a fabulously great show). But there is a grouping of shows, some no longer on the air, some that still are -- some that are truly great, and some that are merely good that the literati and Internet digerati slobbers over, despite the fact that not many people watch them. Here's a very brief (and incomplete) list:
- Damages (FX)
- Mad Men (AMC)
- Gossip Girl (CW)
- The Wire (HBO, no longer on the air)
- 30 Rock (NBC)
Damages is almost certainly on the list because of the perceived star power. 30 Rock perhaps shouldn't be on the list, one way more people watch it (even before ratings picked up this year) and as an insider-y view of the business that perhaps destined to get more literati and digerati drool on it just by its very nature. There are no doubt others, but some shows that I know people would want to put into this list I would exclude for a variety of factors.
A good example of this would be NBC's Life. It has received some critical praise and it has relatively few viewers, though ironically it may have too many viewers to make the list above -- despite its impending cancellation, it has more viewers than every show listed above other than 30 Rock, of course like 30 Rock, its on a major broadcast network and 30 Rock is the only show that can make that claim in my brief list and 30 Rock's numbers, particularly among the advertiser coveted 18-49 demographic are much, much better than Life's. But 30 Rock is still on my list while Life isn't because my perception is that the amount of coverage it gets is outsized compared to its actual viewership. A claim I'd make about all shows on the brief list above that can't be made about Life.
I'm toying with the idea of producing some sort of Slobbering Index that somehow compares actual viewership to the number of stories about the shows on the Internet via Google news.
Despite some mockery of the slobbering, I recommend reading the above article in the NYT, especially if you're a Damages fan. I particularly agree with the author on the subject of Tom Noonan's portrayal as the cop you rarely if ever see on television. Unfortunately, Noonan doesn't have a big role on the show.
While I do think its true that Damages is on the above list because of perceived star power, and that those perceptions should perhaps be adjusted when considering the actual viewership (Damages gets less than half the viewership in its initial broadcast than a midnight airing of a years-old episode of That's So Raven on the Disney channel), I hear that the DVD sales for the show made the executives at FX happy, but I have unfortunately not been able to dig up any useful numbers on Damages DVD sales.
I despise 24 now, yet I love Damages. It’s like a great novel. Unlike 24, which even its producers admit is written by the seat of their pants with no real plan for the whole season (leading to so many WTF moments, and ridiculously implausible situations), Damages is mapped out in advance….and it shows in the way each episode peels back more pieces of the story, and reveals more layers in each character. Whereas 24 is a cartoon, Damages is sophisticated TV viewing. I think Lost, Battlestar Galactica, and Damages are the three best shows on TV right now. They don’t “talk down” to their audience, and you don’t feel like you’ve wasted an hour after watching them.
I’d love to see a slobbering index. There seems to be shows that are allowed to last as long as 3 seasons with all the slobbering and awards it gets, while there are those that get same or better ratings that get the hook after one seasn because of the lack of slobbering over them.
Personally, I usually avoid shows & movies with excessive slobbering over them.
The pilot for “Damages” was great. The show dragged big time midway through and it was very easy to get confused with who was who and their purpose/true motives. I made it through season 1, but stopped after 2 episodes into season 2. It’s just too dull.
“24″ has picked up again this year. Not season 1 or even 3 material, but still solid. David Fury’s episode 2 weeks ago was fantastic.
Every TV fan needs to buy Friday Night Lights season 1 for $19.99 from their local retailer. Amazing show. At that price, it’s like finding a Picasso at a garage sale.
Gossip Girl eh!
People should watch Life on Mars and Ugly Betty!
It really is a terrible shame that the ratings for Damages are so astonishingly bad. I’ve never been more gripped by a show. And, at least in season one, it was able to do something which many much more popular mysteries weren’t and still haven’t. By season’s end, all of the primary mysteries introduced were solved in a completely believable fashion. And there was even a final, stunning twist that wrapped it all up AND provided a reason to get excited about and look forward to a second season. I thought it was absolutely brilliant.
Now, season two has retained the back and forth storytelling, twists and turns, and good acting I love about the show but, especially after the reveal at the end of the last episode, I’m beginning to worry for the first time if they’re going to be able to believably tie it all together. I don’t get how the final scene of the premiere and the final scene of this last episode can possibly mesh. I’m really praying they didn’t screw up here. While I’m a very big fan thus far, when it boils down to it, it really is a delicate show. It walks a very, very fine line. The pieces not fitting together in a conceivable way would result in the entire thing falling apart. But if they do, as they did in season one, to me, it’s solidified as great. I should also say that watching it come together is part of the fun. Hopefully, I’ll be able to say the same about this one.
The Wire and Mad Men!! Absolutely amazing shows: though i still like shows like Ugly Betty or Heroes so. + 30 Rock Yeah!!! Never seen Damages: don’t know why
I usualy hate shows that are critic favourites (Mad Man, Wire, BSG, Gossip Girl (?)) because they tend to be incredibly boring, and focused on “drama” and characters rather on real plots, arcs and action, however I found Damages to be one of the most interesting shows on TV. It shows that even shows that want to be real and hard don’t have to lose any of the tension and action.
Gossip Girl in the same category as 30 ROCK is a huge crime.
Big Love and The Simpsons in the group?
Gossip Girl is not in the same league as the other show’s. GG was never a critics darling as in a quality show, but as something that they hyped because CW was doing some major sucking up to the critics, probably with perks in exchange for attention. It never really got the rave reviews the other shows get.
I would remove it from the list and replace it with Pushing Daisies, as the ultimate critic’s darling no one wanted to watch.
I watch Gossip Girl, but I’m not sure it fits into the group. FNL certainly does though.
Personally, I always thought Damages and Mad Men were overrated. I’ve never watched Gossip Girl and never will. 30 Rock is silly and stupid, and rarely funny. Of those you listed The Wire is the only one I could call great television that was never appreciated.
Critical acclaim vs. audience is an interesting thing.
I am, for example, almost positive that 30 Rock would have been axed after its first season if it had been drowning in critical acclaim and scooping up awards left, right and centre. Right now the fact that it is (I think) the only network show that wins anything at awards shows means it’ll be around for a while. The weird thing is I don’t know why, I can’t see it making the show more profitable and it hasn’t had a notable effect on the ratings. How many people saw 30 Rock win a bucket full of Emmy’s this year for example? And how many of those people then tuned into the next new episode of 30 Rock? There just seems to be a massive disconnect between the perceived importance of these things and the actual reality of the situation.
Not that I don’t like 30 Rock, I think its brilliant I’m just not sure what NBC is getting out of this.
With cable shows I can see how the basic logic of keeping the prestige shows around works and understand it. Despite truly awful ratings I expect Damages to be back for a third season next year and as a viewer I’m happy about that. My general theory is that FX will keep it around as long as critics continue to fall over themselves praising it and it picks up award nominations because essentially its publicity for the quality of their network/brand and when you want people to fork over cash to be able to watch your channel you want them to be bombarded with the message that its worth the price.
The Wire was a great show, and after watching all the seasons on DVD last year, I realized how completely meaningless the Emmys are. If they did actually honor the best, almost every drama category would have been filled with The Wire’s actors, writers or directors. The fact that not one of the actors was even nominated is really ridiculous but not that surprising. After all, people like to watch things like the mob because it’s kind of a fantasy, you don’t hear about mob hits on the news.
However with gang and drug violence, people do here about that in the news everyday and I think it makes people happier to think of the people who get killed as nothing but violent thugs, and The Wire showed people more then they wanted to see or know.
the simpsons? geez… some people live in their own little bubble. they do terrific in the demo, stronger in the fall as opposed to spring… number almost identical to family guy and i don’t think anyone would suggest fg was hardly watched… the movie did 500 million only 1 1/2 years ago and makes fox tons of money especially with it’s international success. seen 3 times a day in most major markets and renewed for 2 more season to hit 22 years… no… i don’t think you rank simpsons as a show hardly anybody watches like damages.
btw: hibbard has a video up that someone made… homer simpsons worst injuries… pretty funny
Hasn’t The Simpson’s been getting pretty routinely and squarely beaten by Family Guy this year? And in general I think the fact it was up so high and has now fallen so far is why people raise their eyebrows at its numbers. I would be incredibly surprised though if it wasn’t still obscene amounts of money for Fox.
I don’t however think it would fit in this category even if nobody was watching it – have you stopped to read any of the recent critical thoughts on The Simpsons? The popular opinion is that its lost its bite and is nowhere near as good as it once was. A few years ago critics might have loved it but I don’t think that’s true anymore.
The only reason the Simpsons makes more than FOX is because its so merchandisable apart from that i’d say each episode of Family Guy makse more than the Simpsons: but Simpsons = international success + loads of kicks who buy, Simpsons pillow cases, DVD’S, pencils, pens, bags, drinks + stuff. So Simpsons overall i’d say gets more, I think this season (although bad dialogue) is only better than some of the last as its not crammed with celebs and the jokes are better: but Homer is just abused as a character: he’s not the same 3-D character he once was. Only a puppet of slapstick.
I think in the UK another under-watched show is ‘Being Human’: dunno bout anything else.
Alex no Family Guy beats Simpsons in numbers and 18-49 hands down this year.
That’s what I was saying, The Simpsons has been getting beaten by Family Guy this year.