As the saying goes, "That's not a flaw, that's a feature."
That point for me is an apt response to a lot of criticism I have seen of the show. My daughter and I just also watched the first four episodes (she has worked in film and I am a writer) and we agreed that the fun parts were the boys as teenagers, the snarky dialogue (understanding how limited of a genre a film script really is), creative disregard of the classic storyline, and what she considered outrageously clever anachronisms (or one could say, I guess, more accurately, not sticking to one period--how about Tolkien--he surely was all over the map in that regard).
I think something you hint at, which I think is evident, is the writers have taken a great deal more time thinking about the various versions of the myth and history of the evolution of the stories than is immediately apparent to those who simply say: This is not the Camelot story we know and expect.
no subject
As the saying goes, "That's not a flaw, that's a feature."
That point for me is an apt response to a lot of criticism I have seen of the show. My daughter and I just also watched the first four episodes (she has worked in film and I am a writer) and we agreed that the fun parts were the boys as teenagers, the snarky dialogue (understanding how limited of a genre a film script really is), creative disregard of the classic storyline, and what she considered outrageously clever anachronisms (or one could say, I guess, more accurately, not sticking to one period--how about Tolkien--he surely was all over the map in that regard).
I think something you hint at, which I think is evident, is the writers have taken a great deal more time thinking about the various versions of the myth and history of the evolution of the stories than is immediately apparent to those who simply say: This is not the Camelot story we know and expect.