Quote:
Originally Posted by bobman0330
I really don't get these weird meta takes. It's like the horse-race style of reporting on politics applied to TV. What I found exciting about The Bells was the possibility that they were going to take the story in an unexpected direction that would give you something to think about past the end of the show. I mean, sure, conditional on the show having been an aimless sloppy mess for the last four seasons and conditional on needing to wrap up the just-introduced Dany plotline in half an episode and then settle everything else in the balance of the episode, it was shakily executed but fundamentally OK. But it's still bad. The things you're gesturing at as extenuating circumstances are just the explanation of how and why the episode was bad.
I guess to me it reads like Browns fans who rant and rave about how bad a 21-17 loss to the Patriots in week 12 was. What did you expect? (this may be a dated take, but you get the point).
Like if the takes were "well that was pretty bad, seems about right" I'd be like, sure. All these takes of "OMG ONE OF THE WORST ENDINGS EVAR" I do not understand.
Edit: Like the final season of Dexter was bad but the final ep still managed to be a substantial step down.