For the third year, the Golden Globes had Ricky Gervais as a host.
The first time Gervais did the Golden Globes, his jokes were clever and witty. It was funny. It was fresh.
Then in 2011 they asked for him back. This causing quite a stir and uproar for being too harsh. It was again expected yet the intensity of the jokes weren't expected. So was there too much hype for 2012? Or was it generally just the same old boring stuff being delivered?
I believe it started well, but the anticipation and hype was all too much for what actually was delivered.
Granted, he did include celebrity jabs, but they were clearly approved and pre-approved by the the team behind the targeted celebrity and network. Another thing noted that practically no celebrity in the room was the subject of his insults, another big disappointment.
He was mildly amusing, but not outstandingly funny like last year. Many of us hoped he'd top last year, so when measured to that expectation, it seemed a let down. Some people believed it was like he wasn't even trying, but I think it was the case that he was trying too hard if anything.
I guess it's 'show business'... Gervais has been good for ratings for the network, and the network has been good to Gervais, no matter how maligned it may be.
I like Gervais, and continue to do so, I just wish the hype hadn't ruined it for him. I would have thought he'd have known better.
No comments:
Post a Comment