“Bojack Horseman” is great and TV criticism sucks
Title says it all. Watch “Bojack Horseman.” It’s on Netflix, it has 3 great seasons, and overall, is a damn good show.
It takes a couple episodes to get into, but after those few episodes you understand what the show is all about. It’s essentially clinical depression with frequent animal jokes, which is perfect!
I was initially turned off to the show after a brutal “59” MetaCritic score for its first season. But here’s the problem with that. The most important thing for a hired critic is to publish, to make money, to get clicks etc. However a lot of the times, for shows, they’re only given 3-4 episodes ahead of time, then they write their review based on those episodes.
I understand the business side of it. A review released after or during a season won’t get as many clicks as the articles posted immediately. But, just like the existence of MetaCritic and Rotten Tomatoes, this hurts the art of criticism significantly.
So what happens with “Bojack Horseman”? Season 2 holds a 90 on MetaCritic, season 3 holds a “89.” This has to be one of the greatest critical gaps on MetaCritic between seasons. If you watch the show there is no discernible change in quality from Season 1 forward.
The most recent season of “Game of Thrones” also received the lowest MetaCritic score of the show yet at 73. Even in the review taglines you can see critics saying they’ve only watched the first few episodes of the season, which were less than stellar.
Moral to this post? “Bojack Horseman” is great and TV criticism sucks.