“Narrator and creator can come across as pretentious, snobbish, hypocritical, preachy sensationalist and self congratulatory. The show has an interesting subject but the execution is poorly. Since the main controversy is barely mentioned in one episode and kinda bypass with hearsay as facts it leaves a gap in the story that could’ve been more thorough investigated and objective. the interview with Harry was weak and edited to fit the narrative, the series could’ve benefited of shorter episodes. Since at times episodes can feel like fillers concentrating more on the analogically narrative than the actual story it wants to tell. Although it brings to light interesting facts from its subjects his analogies to the story can be a little condescending , dramatic and even melodramatic. The bonus episode are self praising masturbatory complements to the creative team of the show. while under their production the main subject of the show was not even going to be interviewed is not for an accident. the big slap of the podcast is that the narrator was a big fan of aicn praising and giving a pass to favorite writers of the site that in todays world might be considered misogamist, insensitive and racist while condemning the more controversial figures of his narrative. the narrator did enjoy this site and was a consumer and fan of it which leaves the listener wondering so did you enjoy those incentives reviews, did you give them a pass? Did you learn at the time that what they were writing was immoral and toxic or is it now twenty plus years after the fact that you look back in your pedestal and be like yeah I was not their designated demographic? At the end the narrator’s finger gets pointed towards his prejudge-mental narrative without any personal growth of the times when he was younger and enjoyed the site he based a podcast of.”
parker george via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
08/13/22