Several other reviews on this site seem to take umbrage with the fact that this show is "on the wrong platform," almost as if they were expecting some adult show with swearing and blood and guts and gore; as if they were expecting that just because Eloise Little is an alumna of His Dark Materials that this show was somehow going to BE His Dark Materials.
Spoiler alert:
It's not.
I don't want to call it a "kids' show," because I feel that term is a bit derogatory. To me, when I think of "kids' show," I think Sesame Street or Zoboomafoo, which this is not (though it still has more in common with Zoboomafoo that it does with Game of Thrones). This is more what I'd consider an "all ages" show, with teens and tweens being its target audience, but it being complex and engaging enough to entertain older viewers - obviously, since I've been watching it and enjoying it, and I'm an adult.
This show is like the perfect meeting place of Young Sherlock Holmes and Magic Tree House, with a touch of a modern single-cam sitcom. It has the feeling of an easy-reading chapter book, which - although I have not read them - I assume the Theodosia books fall into this category (similar to the Enola Holmes books, which another reviewer likened this to). This show is fun, fresh, and easy to watch. The acting and production value are superb. Though the choice of 2000s funk akin to X-Men: Evolution is admittedly an odd choice for underscore, it's not one I entirely dislike.
I wrote this review because I wanted to counter the notion that just because it wasn't what you were expecting that that means it's bad, or that anything short of Theodosia lopping off a bad guy's head is poor television. And furthermore, if it wasn't what you were looking for when you were scrolling through HBO Max because you assume HBO Max is the TV-MA platform, why would you spend the energy to leave a bad review for a show that wasn't meant for you? Can't we review a show based on its merits, not based on whether or not we thought it was a good fit for HBO Max?
Spoiler alert:
It's not.
I don't want to call it a "kids' show," because I feel that term is a bit derogatory. To me, when I think of "kids' show," I think Sesame Street or Zoboomafoo, which this is not (though it still has more in common with Zoboomafoo that it does with Game of Thrones). This is more what I'd consider an "all ages" show, with teens and tweens being its target audience, but it being complex and engaging enough to entertain older viewers - obviously, since I've been watching it and enjoying it, and I'm an adult.
This show is like the perfect meeting place of Young Sherlock Holmes and Magic Tree House, with a touch of a modern single-cam sitcom. It has the feeling of an easy-reading chapter book, which - although I have not read them - I assume the Theodosia books fall into this category (similar to the Enola Holmes books, which another reviewer likened this to). This show is fun, fresh, and easy to watch. The acting and production value are superb. Though the choice of 2000s funk akin to X-Men: Evolution is admittedly an odd choice for underscore, it's not one I entirely dislike.
I wrote this review because I wanted to counter the notion that just because it wasn't what you were expecting that that means it's bad, or that anything short of Theodosia lopping off a bad guy's head is poor television. And furthermore, if it wasn't what you were looking for when you were scrolling through HBO Max because you assume HBO Max is the TV-MA platform, why would you spend the energy to leave a bad review for a show that wasn't meant for you? Can't we review a show based on its merits, not based on whether or not we thought it was a good fit for HBO Max?