Forver laughing at people who think they favourite show are above pandering. Some show pander but do it right so you can get past it if you’re not the pandered part of the fandom, and some shows do it terribly and it makes a mess.
Because the writing of a show, any show, is not somehow immune from criticism. When it’s bad, it deserves to be criticized. It wouldn’t matter if A&E wrote fucking Citizen Kane (perhaps the most perfect script ever written). Their work would still be open for criticism. All creative output is. And, for what it’s worth, Lost’s quality wasn’t because of A&E. Christ, the quality of OUAT should be enough proof of that. They weren’t the showrunners of Lost. They weren’t in control of the story or the characters. It wasn’t their show. They were just writers. People need to stop with the “they wrote Lost so they’re good”/”they wrote Lost so you can’t criticize them” bullshit. It’s not an excuse in any way. When writing is bad, it deserves to be criticized. And the writing on OUAT is BAD. It’s not just one ship. It’s the whole writing of the show.
I’m really sorry about that, I ran out of motivation to re-watch the episode and make recaps (it took longer than you’d think).
The two are linked. CS isbad because OUAT’s writing is bad. While it’s mostly about CS though, sometimes it’s inevitable that the writing in general is critisized because CS is one manifestation of the bad writing.
The age difference argument is really an argument I’ll never understand…
They weren’t the only writers in Lost, and incidentally, I have not seen Lost.
I judge the writing of OUAT, and the writing of OUAT is shitty as fuck.
It’s not about fuckings ships, it’s about lousy writing.