why is the rating so low?? every new episode I watch i get more excited about this show but then I come to see how's it going' here is the oppossite... I find it to be a very refreshing series, at least in Stan Lee's universe. The acting is solid and the story too. I find very little flaws to be punished by that score.
shareAgreed , think its very watchable .
shareIt started terrible but I grew to like it
shareI'm enjoying it, as well. The discourse on IMDB boards is often the dregs of the dregs. I'll never understand why so many people seem to think that hating something and tearing it down makes them appear smarter and superior. I don't spend my time looking up articles or IMDB pages or reviews of things I hated, much less write lengthy posts about them. The only case in which I might comment about disliking something is if there was something disappointing included in something I otherwise like (for instance, a bad episode of a show I love). Yet on almost every message board or comment section about a tv show, movie, book, or piece of music - even boards about real human beings such as actors or directors - there are always an abundance of negative and hateful comments. What does that say about people? It's sad that there are so many people that are so unhappy that they can't enjoy entertainment! That's not to say that all entertainment is good, of course there is quite a lot of crap produced, but at this point in history we have so much entertainment to choose from (that fact alone is kind of disturbing) that there really is no reason to stick with with something that you don't enjoy, much less prolong the bad experience by expounding on it in online posts. Then again, maybe griping about media provides a cathartic relief for these unhappy people that prevents them from taking out their misery on people in their AFK lives. I think that is probably too optimistic to hope for; they are probably miserable to be around IRL, as well.
I loved "Jekyll" and will watch anything with James Nesbitt. He is a fantastic actor. It boggles the mind that there is an entire thread here discussing how he should fix his teeth so he looks more like George Cloony. If "Lucky Man" were produced for American network tv, with the lead part played by a super-handsome, boring, Hollywood-type actor (lots of shirtless scenes) and a supporting cast of airbrushed models (of both genders), I could imagine it would be as soulless and uninteresting as this year's "The Player", "Rosewood", and most the disappointing, "Lucifer".
"Lucifer" is actually the best example to compare with "Lucky Man", as both are linked to comic books (I know "Lucky Man" wasn't a comic, but Stan Lee = comic books), both feature a main character with mild powers (so far, all Lucifer has been able to pull off is making people reveal their deepest desires and occasionally driving people mad with his secret scary face) who investigate crime in a procedural, bad-guy-of-the-week fashion, with a female partner and an overarching theme of trying to reconcile naughty pasts and predilections with doing good and fighting crime. "Lucky Man" has the benefit of James Nesbitt and a supporting cast of really good actors who actually look like real (while still attractive) people in settings that seem relatively plausible. "Lucifer"... is just superficial and so disappointing; that they took a character from Neil Gaiman and some of Vertigo's best and turn him into a one-dimensional piece of eye-candy tagging along on a generic cop procedural is unforgivable and insulting to audiences. Clearly, the ratings (or whatever their excuse to cancel it) failure of last year's "Constantine", which had real potential and a terrific lead (though they whitewashed some key elements), put the fear of God (pun intended) into the Network execs and so they crammed Lucifer into a familiar, boring box, removing everything that would make the people who would have been the core fanbase (fans of the comics) want to watch it. I don't know why they even bothered. If you're doing a comic book adaptation, I think you have to go full-on fantasy or take it down to a lone, imperfect hero trying to make a dent in the corruption of a place that resembles the real world (e.g. Daredevil and Jessica Jones). "Lucky Man" does that. Nesbitt's character is a borderline antihero, full of flaws, given an amazing power that could be the key to his redemption or his total downfall. I'm hooked.
I've been hooked since the opening of the first episode.
Each episode ends before I want it to...and I am counting the days until the next one.
It's excellent storytelling and I think it's one of the better things that's been on UK TV for some time.
Here Here!
I too loved Jekyll and will watch anything with Nesbitt. His transformation from Jekyll to Hyde with minimum makeup/effects is BRILLIANT!
This show isn't perfect but it's very good especially considering the recent comic book tv series which have been mostly terrible.
the reason being this is not to every ones taste, they so Stan Lee name thinking super hero, not this but personally i loved it from the get go, that is due to Nisbet i just loved the character, i think suspense is great and waiting for the villain to show up my money is on the prison manager ??
shareI agree. I enjoy the show very much and every week I've finished an episode I want more.
My theory on why it has so low rating is: IMDB is controlled by Golding. :P
Made you look!
was a bit slow to the there, but its there! and im loving it =)
http://trakt.tv/users/pedro
I'm willing to bet that most of the complaints of a certain variety are from US viewers via piracy. They just have a US vibe to them. And this show definitely appeals more to our tastes.
Much like "You, Me and the Apocalypse" which was reaping much praise here until it hit the US airwaves when suddenly there was all this negativity. And those that were enjoying it seemed to be under the impression that it was a drama.
Some people feel the rain. Others just get wet.
Has to be the Americans. Couldn't be that the show just wasn't all that good. Don't get me wrong it wasn't terrible (at least not until the last 3 episodes), and I found the first 4-5 episodes pretty good.
It was obvious from about episode 4 that Julien was Goldy, which made it annoying to watch everyone ignore the obvious, and of course most of them had to continue doing things out of character to further the plot. Could have been much better imo.
It kept me engaged and entertained which is all I ask of a TV show. It wasn't a thinker but that isn't what I came in expecting with Stan Lee's name in the title.
And Julien being Golding was obvious to the viewer, but it wasn't out of character for the characters not to figure it out as they didn't have access to all the concentrated information we did. As a viewer that aspect was a bit insulting to the intelligence and perhaps a nod toward a possible American audience to come.
But the ratings speak that they pegged their audience correctly and we are both outliers in different ways. Here's hoping they continue to do so next year as well.
Some people feel the rain. Others just get wet.