The Ratings For ‘Fargo’ Were Either ‘Strong’ Or ‘Lukewarm’ Depending On The Source

Senior Writer
04.16.14 13 Comments


In case you missed last night’s debut of the new FX miniseries Fargo, which is obviously based on the wonderful Coen brothers film, or you’re waiting to watch it in 5-episode blocks (because why the hell should a Saturday be productive?), the strong consensus seems to be that it’s pretty darn good. And by strong consensus, I mean that our own Danger Guerrero seems to like it, and he’s recognized as the best TV critic in the world on at least five continents (citation needed).

But if you take a little trip over to some of the so-called “industry experts” and “actual critic” sites for expert analysis and news about the debut episode’s ratings, you might end up confused. Approximately 4.2 million viewers tuned in to watch Fargo last night, and I don’t know if that’s actually good or not. I mean, 4.2 million people is a lot of people, but what does that mean in terms of TV ratings success? Let’s start with the Hollywood Reporter for answers.

All right! “Strong” is always good. Let’s head over to Entertainment Weekly and check their take on the ratings, just to be sure.

Wait, what? Now I’m really confused. How are the ratings both lukewarm and strong? Someone help me. How about you, The Wrap?

Okay, we’re back to strong. Maybe EW just uses a different system or dictionary. What sayeth you, Variety?

I give up. Does the show’s producer at least like the number?

“We are incredibly proud of the towering creative achievement by [writer] Noah Hawley and everyone involved with Fargo,” said John Landgraf, CEO of FX Networks. “The performances … are nothing short of extraordinary. This is truly one of the best shows we’ve ever had on the network. We’re thrilled with the initial viewership last night and really excited for audiences to see the rest of the miniseries.” (Via EW)

Fine, I’ll settle for the biased word of the guys who made the show. It’s not like they’re going to cancel it.

Around The Web