recognized without difficulty what I had plainly posted.
Most of those reviews would have been written, posted, and aggregated into a Metascore before the reviewers would have been in a position to see and write about the show's decline in quality.
That's not what was said at all. Critics loved the premiere of the show, as did I, but they universally bashed the show as it continued.
Since you apparently need your hand held through this, I'll go ahead and humor you. The Metascore that trevanian
cited in defense of the show was formed based on early reviews
- i.e., reviews of episodes before
the downturn in quality. Most Metascores are not updated to include midseason and end-of-season reviews, and thus are almost always formed solely upon the strength or weakness of either the premiere episode alone or a small batch of episodes sent early to critics.
Most Metascores are based only on a small snapshot of a given series, rather than being reflective of a whole as they can be in terms of a self-contained reviewed work (movie, video game, etc.). Due to this, yes, I will discount Metascores when applied to television series.
You just reiterated your belief that these were the wrong
critics. I don't care the reason you think they're the wrong critics, whether because you think they didn't critique enough of of the show to make their opinions valid or whatever.
The critiques by Metacritic were offered as evidence of the show's "critical acclaim", you followed that by stating why you don't think the critiques at Metacritic are valid -- in other words, you're not accepting their
critiques as valid. Thus my statement that (in your eyes) they are the wrong critics.
Now, you let me know if you
require any additional handholding.