Susanne Bier is one of my favourite filmmakers. I think the sooner she gets away from such TV series and back to film , the better . I thought this series, despite a lot of hype & promotion, was very ordinary indeed. Apart from some nice cinematography and the always reliable performance of Olivia Coleman, the rest was just so hum drum. Perhaps the material from Le Carre's book needed some better adaptation ? Bier perhaps should have engaged her usual great screenwriter collaborator in Anders Thomas Jenson to improve the script ? And the performances of Hiddleston & Lawrie were just clichd caricatures of the "goodie & the baddie" who bored me by episode 3. For me , I would have given the Golden Globes to " The Night Of" with John Turturro & Riz Ahmed vying for the acting awards.

In a week where anti Americanism is going to be a big thing I refuse to believe that the Golden Globe gives awards to actors who are famous for being in something else,the judges gave the award for his acting in The Night Manager,some might disagree with their view but the guy has not just been in super hero films for god's sake.

I actually found Colman and Laurie really good, but I agree that Tom Hiddleston didn't deserve the award.
I get that he wasn't supposed to be Loki - he was supposed to be a man people underestimated and didn't take notice of. The characters (the bad guys, anyway) weren't meant to realize his underlying strength and toughness; but the problem was the audience didn't see it either.
Hiddleston took the "Pine acting weak" bit too far, making it impossible to believe in him as a former soldier. There should have been much more intensity and charisma when he showed his "true face", but he was just timid and dull. When he was in fights, killing etc it just seem believable.
There's no way he would have gotten the GG if it wasn't for his US fame as Loki.
"The best fairytale is one where you believe the people" -Irvin Kershner

I am sure many worse shows have won Golden Globes?
What does HFP mean in this context?

Totally agree. Can't believe it won any acting award, let alone three. Hugh Laurie is a brilliant actor, but I don't the camera stayed on him until the end of even one of his dialogues. And the dryness of the plot made the whole thing worse.

I'm glad someone else agrees. To a degree. At best, an award for the opening credits and the scene with "Angela Burr," ("Corkoran" was noteworthy and "Joel Steadman" likeable), but it tried
too obviously
to be Casino Royal and it's as if they phoned it in or something, conjuring old characters or PR images without much thought or care. Pisses me off such half assedness gets rewarded, but the GG's have officially lost all credibility for me. Really? They thought that was the best of 2016? Such an insult to the profession and other actors of the year. Seriously. Think about it. This is what they consider the height of excellence. These are what tower over all other performances, mentioned and not mentioned, of 2016.

I found it fascinating, kept my interest right from the start. Tom Hiddleton has a star quality. When he's on screen he captivates the viewer. It was only 6 episodes so we didnt have the time to know the characters better but Pine was not only a hotel manager that became an agent, he was a former soldier in Iraq, with an agent father. So, it's not that he came out of the blue. I found Hugh Laurie smaller than circumstances. He had a foxy look in his eyes, he was arrogant and ironic, just like House and that's all

All right but here is another argument for him deserving an award for seemingly plsying the same role twice with a different name.
Jack Nickolson won 3 playing the same character.
And Roper is a villain meanwhile House is an Anti Hero or flawed hero. While House and Roper share some characteristics their nature and intentions make them different.

I did not say he is a bad actor for repeating his House persona; I agreed with the topic title of him not deserving an award - he was already awarded multiple times for this same type of performance. Golden Globes doesn't have much credibility anyway

So who cares?
Clooney also does it in almost every film he is in and everone loves him for it, so i have no trouble seeing Hugh repeating House in some way. His greatest attribute as an actor is not being a chameleon but his effortless ability to go from drama to comedy in just one second and his great charisma.
Not everyone has to be Daniel Day Lewis to impress, im not saying it discredit your opinion, i used to think thatvway that only chameleons were great actors and everyone else were just lazy comformist but as my favorite actors list got more diverese i learned to appreciate other types of actors and different strengths.

Yeah, Hugh just did a repeat of his House character: very intelligent and sarcastic with leadership attributes

Wooow, really?
I watched a whole different show with the same name then because i thought it was really good, it takes maybe afew minutes to grab you but once it does it's fantastic with really good performances.
Maybe They needed an actor with more prescence and more mature for Pine but it was compensated by Hugh Laurie who is really charming and you see why some people wanted to be around Roper he definitely gave you that vibe of someone you wouldn't want as your enemy but loved as a friend.
Angela Burr would have been better as a men too, someone more impossing but I guess Olivia gave this some realism to the series, except her and Corky everyone looked very polished so i think her casting was fine.

The Night Of wasn't perfect, but it was much better than this.
Both shows
require a suspension of disbelief from the viewers
, but in the case of The Night Manager the effort the viewer has to make is immense from the beginning (at least The Night Of went off the rails a couple of episodes later).
Anyway, The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story wasn't perfect either. I'm sure there were other bold (and worthy) options in the limited series category that were left out.

How on earth hugh laurie and tom hiddlestone won a golden globe for the night manager. John torturo and riz ahmed was totally robbed for their work in the night of. Far better character development and story.

Yes he did and show his pearly whites he was so silent and did not react much. The scenery was great in Mallorca best bit and Olivia Coleman and Tom Hollander. I think Tom Hiddleston has had a meteoric rise he was in Wallander do not know if he deserves it he is no Damien Lewis!

i hate how Pine's character is terribly written. Towards the end of the series, all he does is smile and shrug at all of Roper's comments. Such a dull personality!

This TV show is so far-fetched, stupid and lame I thought it would be great since it won the Golden Globes awards, but I was so wrong!
The script is dull and weak, besides the plot isn't cohesive for a quality drama like this should be. I found myself counting the great amount of unbelievable details episode after episode, it was so distracting!
Nobody would ever believe the evolution of Pine as a character from night manager to undercover agent pretending to be one of the Roper's man. I'm sorry, but I didn't buy it at all and it was extremely forced, shoehorned into the story very poorly.
Not worthy of the Golden Globe awards like the OP said.

It started kinda interesting but then as it goes on, totally unbelievable characters and hokey situations. Basically a good looking show but at the core it's more about cheap thrills.

The girl Jed should try another profession she was a terrible actress. Close ups of Hugh Laurie not good so craggy his voice got on my nerves. It was good Olivia Coleman being the best actor in it always relaxed and funny also really pregnant she had a girl in 2015 so did my dear daughter.

Completely agree. I've been watching the episodes on long haul flights - they're
OK
, but the acting feels SO shoddy from all except Corky and Coleman. Hugh Laurie looks like someone's dad trying to do an impression of someone at a dinner party - he just doesnt perform it as a well drawn believable character. Hiddleston is similar - the acting is so self conscious and strained. Its like an am-dram play for elderly folk. I can't believe they were awarded, it renders the globes completely meaningless.

I believe you mean a slow burn. Potboiler has an entirely different, mainly negative connotation. It basically means an artistic work with little artistic merit, but created for money.

Tomk, I totally agree with you. Like you rightly said, we're not experts, we merely like what we like. I don't watch award shows eitherthey're boring as hell. haha
Read an interesting article yesterday that Taboo's co-writer, Steven Knight, says he has material to turn Taboo into a 3 season series. My personal feelings are mixed at that prospect.
I, for one, like potboilers; but only to the extent that the build-up is necessary in telling a satisfying story. I have seen shows which add filler episodes, only because they have 20+ episodes to cover. I can't speak for others, but to me, such episodes are grating, to say the least.
While American shows have bigger budgets and higher production values, the thing I appreciate about British series is that they keep keep their projects short (on average, 2 to 3 seasons, 6 episodes per season). This allows each episode to be chockablock with story and atmosphere, without the need for unwanted fillers. I do understand that American tv shows need more than 4 seasons is a necessity for syndication purposes. Sadly, story lines are stretched to be a point they become convoluted, or a right mess! Eventually, what started off as a great tv series, loses momentum and audience. With the exception to The Wire, The Shield, and Breaking Bad, I can't think of any other shows I had watched from the start which I followed through till the end. Homeland, Dexter and The Sopranos had an awesome start, an ok subsequent season, but it by the end of their 3rd season, I didn't care enough to continue. Game of Thrones and The American House of Cards both had downer seasons, but recovered, so I am hopeful.
Penny Dreadful has been on my watchlist for quite a while, haven't got around to it.

I have heard only good things about this. So I'm going to try it out in my Amazon Prime,,.i think those who might have thought this was too slow might think the same about Taboo,.,. it too lingers. But visually is it gritty and youncan almost smell it,,.lolrealism was thought about for this one.
Good story telling doesn't mean it has to be on speed. I think ,especially younger audiences having grown up with so much action,adventure and special effects they forget what a good story looks like. And reading one has become foreign to many.
We are dumbing down I'm afraid.
I for one avoid these award shows, over 90 of them,btw..all about $$. I wouldn't put too much into who wins and doesn'tsome of the voters don't even watch some entries. For instant Penny Dreadful,because it was billed as horror,wasn't watched by those who vote and wasn't even mentioned in its first year. Horror is avoided. And even though it was one of the best told stories,poetic even,best acted and incredibly filmed,because it was a horror they didn't see it until afterward. The awards went to nighttime soaps.
Anyhow. I'm going on. I think it is hard for us to always know what we're talking about as welllolI know what I like. But I'm no expert. Most of us aren't
But I always tell people if you didn't like something,it fine, That is what makes the world go round. But it doesn't mean it wasn't well done or well executedor that it wasn't just what they intended.
everyone is a criticlol.
I do think Taboo will be recognized for many awards however. I'm at episode three now and it is very good. Hardy is an incredible actor. Good people who know writing and film are involved. But it isn't for everyone. That is for sure.

While I thought the show was good, I agree the performances didn't warrant the GG wins.
Just for comparison, there is another British/American mini series just out called Taboo. Tom Hardy is captivating. Be nice to see him snag the GG awards next year.