I'd be interested in to know the backstory on why the critics have taken such a negative view of this series right off the bat. The Rotten Tomatoes consensus (dating from the very first episode) is "Falling Water attempts complexity and intrigue but churns out an unimaginative concept lacking a redeemable payoff."
The fact is the concept is highly original--I have spent my life reading and viewing science-fiction and have never come across this theme before. And how can they possibly know that it is "lacking a redeemable payoff"?
Is it possible that these reviewers receive a whole series plot development along with the copy of the first episode? I mean, if they know how the series develops and,for that reason, they know it is a dud, this should be acknowledged up-front somewhere.
The fact is the concept is highly original--I have spent my life reading and viewing science-fiction and have never come across this theme before. And how can they possibly know that it is "lacking a redeemable payoff"?
Is it possible that these reviewers receive a whole series plot development along with the copy of the first episode? I mean, if they know how the series develops and,for that reason, they know it is a dud, this should be acknowledged up-front somewhere.
Tell Your Friends