And vice versa…
True, but a lot of those box office successes were in the '80s and I seem to recall that he was seen as kind of a has-been in the 90s (he did star in Groundhog Day in 1993, but it was only later that that became a cult favorite). It wasn’t until Rushmore that people began taking him seriously again and mentioning him in the same breath as DeNiro.
It got renewed because it’s really fucking funny. S1 reminds me a lot of The Office, insofar as it was finding its legs, but (to extend the metaphor) it really hit its stride in S2.
Illuminatiprimus writes:
> . . . something like Lord of the Rings when first published was considered a
> terrible piece of work in an absolute sense . . .
When was The Lord of the Rings ever considered a terrible piece of work “in an absolute sense”? And what is an “absolute sense” anyway? There was a period from the time it was published (1954 and 1955) to the time (in 1964) when it came out in paperback when it was rather obscure. It got both good and bad reviews during that time. It didn’t sell a lot of books though. That article in Cracked that’s linked to in post #63 is just wrong.
As the paperback editions came out in the late 1960’s, it continued to get both good and bad reviews. The reviews had no effect on the sales of the book, which increased to the point that it’s the best-selling novel of all time. It continues to be controversial in academic circles, with large numbers of academics both loving and hating the book.
I think that the OP is simply badly formulated. There are no things that went from everyone hating it to everyone loving it. The things that were once controversial are still controversial.
Well consider me corrected then - sorry I spoke.