Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappy
I dont't think so. They appear to be pretty similar. But yes, Madmen had far more of a cultural presence; although when it reached mainstream i dont know (i.e. what season). Some of that would be that Don Draper became the one of the main pillars of the anti-protagonist. Also, yes, the sets and the style certainly helped as well.
Succesion certainly lacks the style of Madmen, and purposefully or not there isn't a lead like Jon Hamm playing DD. I also think Madmen became a celebration of the style and glam of the upper-class white 60's. It would be tough in this political/economic climate to start celebrating Succession in the same way.
Interesting article on the matter:
https://money.cnn.com/2015/04/03/med...ngs/index.html |
No they’re not even close to similar.
Mad Men averaged over 2 million viewers for every episode from S4 onwards and only S1 averaged less than a million. S2 and S3 were in between.
Succession have never had 1 million viewers for a single episode, ever. It is currently averaging less than 600k viewers per episode. And ratings are going down. They have multiple episodes with less than 500k viewers.
Even if we only compared season 1-3, mad men is crushing succession in viewers.
So no, the shows are not remotely comparable when it comes to being a critical darling that didn’t get viewers. Mad Men was superior critically, culturally and in terms of viewers.
Even just to say their ratings won’t match their critical acclaim isn’t really accurate. Mad Men was a ratings smash, not to mention cultural phenomenon, compared to succession.
Now HBO would say they don’t care about ratings in that way but that’s besides the point.