This guy has a major Disneybrain/Franchisebrain problem - The Critical Drinker (2012) Discussion

[–] TandyMan (10434) 7 months ago

Give the the SuperChats what they're salivating for. It's a grift!

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

I'm a fan, I've been generally pleased by his content.

Wow. A content creator that gives his fans content they want? Presented as though that is bad? How strange.

You know, nearly all the content creators I watch, give me what I want to see....

I think you might be on to something. THey are PURPOSEFULLY trying to make content that I want to watch, to get me to WATCH IT!!!

The FIENDS!!!!!

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

I think you missed my point in the OP here, CriticalDrinker doesn't consume enough diverse modern media to make any informed conclusions about how it is. There's tons of shows that he knows nothing about, but should given his interests.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

Maybe. Or maybe between watching what he watches and reviews and all the time he spends making content, not to mention writing his books, he ony has so much time.

Or, maybe he is aware of them, but hasn't reviewed them becuase it is not what his fans ask for or he just hasn't had time.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

>Or, maybe he is aware of them, but hasn't reviewed them becuase it is not what his fans ask for or he just hasn't had time.

I mean he obviously just doesn't have Apple TV. But I've noticed this tendency from others too, a lot of "modern tv/film is rubbish" type caustic critics spend all their time beating their head against a brick wall, watching the latest marvel slush or star wars or whatever generic franchise reboot is released somehow expecting different results.

There's more to modern TV/film than Disney, Hollywood franchise remakes and the occasional trending Netflix show.

reply

[–] mitzibishi (1624) 7 months ago

Why is Apple TV such a requirement?

I don't have it, I don't know anybody that does. I watched 5 different movies this weekend, from 93 upwards, different genres and had no problem without having access to Apple TV. Are you Steve Jobs?

Why does it matter?

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

>Why is Apple TV such a requirement?

It's not. Although it has some high quality shows now, to be honest. Some critic who claims to have their finger on the pulse of modern TV can't credibly ignore it.

I listed many other shows not on Apple that he has seemingly not watched.

reply

[–] mitzibishi (1624) 7 months ago

Well make your own channel and educate people with a diverse range of reviews.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

I mean this is a bit like someone telling The Critical Drinker to make his own film lol

I take your point, but all I was saying is that he really does give a misleading view of modern TV/film

reply

[–] Martoto (4338) 7 months ago

Totally. Preaching asinine talking points to a choir that's desperate for people "brave" enough to to tell them what they already want to agree with based on their own lack of info.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6001) 7 months ago

He makes what is going to get him the most views/clicks. I think he is aware of those other things but that goes against his brand. What is his brand? Beating up on liberal left leaning entertainment. He will throw in a movie like Everything Everywhere all at once. This is so that people can't say he does not enjoy diverse films when called on it. Some of the stuff he revies is trash such as She Hulk, Ghostbusters 2016 etc. However I just find it dumb when people act as if there is not what they are looking for. If you want good cinema you need to hunt for it. If you only tune into the mainstream garbage you will miss out on plenty of good films. It is similar to cinemasins. They know what will get the clicks/views. While I am not saying Drinker has ever had good points I just find his type of critiquing to be annoying. I do not enjoy critics who rely on a gimmick. I like actual analysis.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

I mean he also doesn't even seem to be aware of quite big modern day TV shows lol.

If he was ignorant, it would be more excusable.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6001) 7 months ago

He just knows what his audience wants to hear. They want to hear about how awful left leaning beliefs are as well as how it is ruining entertainment. While I do agree that putting politics before storytelling is bad it is disingenuous to make the blanket statement that all left leaning films are bad. He relies on outrage porn for viewers. Can't blame the guy it is a rather affective gimmick. I do not think he has any interest in truly analyzing films. He just wants to make money and he found the perfect gimmick. I agree if he were ignorant it would be more excusable. Well see that is just it he is aware but I do not think his audience is aware of how much entertainment is out there. Since they only watch what he recommends.

reply

[–] jk90us (5528) 7 months ago

He’s aware of rare great stuff out there and occasionally posts reviews about them too.

But he and similar YouTubers spend a bulk of their time griping about Disney-related productions because Disney seems to be hellbent on trying to change the entire entertainment landscape into a woke nightmare.

Drinker and others push back against that strongly to make others aware and prevent the idiots at Disney from affecting the entire industry.

Also, their negative reviews garner more views. People in general enjoy watching opinions about trainwrecks than puppy dogs and sunshine.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

>He’s aware of great stuff out there occasionally and posts reviews about them too.

He misses a lot of great stuff. As I outlined in my post, and I could say more.

>But he and similar YouTubers spend a bulk of their time griping about Disney-related productions because they’re doing such a piss poor job due to their focusing on trying to change the entire entertainment landscape into a woke nightmare.

But they don't. Disney and franchise media does not remotely dominate modern TV, for a start. They may well have more influence in films, but there's hundreds of independent and slightly more obscure films that aren't that.

I genuinely think CT is either grifting, or is amazingly ignorant about modern TV.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6001) 7 months ago

He is grifting man. There is no way someone with a channel as big as he has and as much time as he has is totally unaware of all the great stuff he does not cover or ignores.

reply

[–] jk90us (5528) 7 months ago

Disney is a massive entertainment giant with the ability to a affect the industry. Most major big budget films are released by them every year.

Drinker can only produce so many videos a year so he focuses most of them on their illogical crusade.

But you do ask a good question. Why not ask him on Twitter? He’s usually pretty good at responding.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

>Disney is a massive entertainment giant with the ability to a affect the industry. Most major big budget films are released by them every year.

And yet it does not impact TV at all.

And what was he doing reviewing "Robyn Hood" if he is only interested in highlighting really big releases from Disney and other franchise media?

I'm also stunned that a nearly 40 year old man would be genuinely so invested in Disney remakes, fairytale and generic franchise TV shows. It's just weird. Half of the shows and films he reviews are unironically meant for children or teenagers.

>Drinker can only produce so many videos a year so he focuses most of them on their illogical crusade.

So he cherrypicks. This is my point. He gives a misleading perspective.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6001) 7 months ago

While I agree that Disney is doing a horrendous job at making films, I do not buy that those folks are doing it for a genuine reason. I think they are doing it because it brings in good revenue. If it was not bringing in revenue I think they would find some other gimmick. Negativity always attracts more attention. The issue is I feel it drives people to want to focus on the negative rather than the positive side of things.

reply

[–] jk90us (5528) 7 months ago

That is true but it doesn’t make what he’s saying wrong.

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6001) 7 months ago

I do not agree with all of his points though. One of the biggest ones being his review about Midsommar. His review on that was awful!

reply

[–] jk90us (5528) 7 months ago

Didn’t see that one. Did he like it or hate it?

reply

[–] moviefanatic505 (6001) 7 months ago

He hated it.

reply

[–] M1sterDoct0r (3961) 7 months ago

I'll give him this, he knows EXACTLY what his audience wants..

They want to hear that everything nowadays sucks. Everything is diverse, woke & bad.

Just like a lot of clickbait sites, He has "weaponized" fake outrage. I'm not even mad nor am I a hater. A man's gotta eat.

reply

[–] jk90us (5528) 7 months ago

Fake outrage? I agree with what he’s saying about the way entertainment is shifting, especially by Disney.

So do most audiences based on dropping movie revenue and most viewers reviews I’ve seen.

reply

[–] M1sterDoct0r (3961) 7 months ago

Are you "outraged" though? Genuinely asking.

Or are you "losing your mind" like a lot of Bullshit articles make it seem.

Here's the thing, the best way to make Disney or any other major corporation "pay" is with your wallet.

All these Youtubers or websites do is give them free publicity. Publicity that woulda cost them a buttload of money.

For example, You know that new shitty looking robin hood show? I genuinely didn't even know ow it existed until they started making videos & writing countless articles about it.

Or that awful Velma show that everybody hate watched & got a second season.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

The idea that negative publicity is good is old think and I don't think that they think that any more.

People calling out bad behavior by rich and powerful people, is completely valid imo.

And disney is gushing money and red ink these days. The push back from fans, is real and their attempt to dismiss it, is causing real consequences for them.

Insulting your customers is not good business.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

>The idea that negative publicity is good is old think and I don't think that they think that any more.

People hatewatched Velma into renewal.

It can work.

reply

[–] M1sterDoct0r (3961) 7 months ago

"I watched it so you don't have to". Ya, but you watched it. Doesn't matter if you did it on someone's behalf or hate watched it, still counts as a view.

If you ignore this shite, it'll go away. The people they pretend to have made it for, don't care about it. Shocker!

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

There is an odd problem with lack of accountability with ceos and their bad decisions,

BUT, losing money eventually catches up even with the biggest companies.

CW ignored reality for a long time. Until they couldn't.

Disney is paying a heavy price for their wokeness.

ect. And more and more all the time.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

The Last of Us, Sex Education, Heartstopper, Young Royals, Glow, Euphoria, For All Mankind all say hi

The idea "wokeness" (or what is so described) destroys a TV series is fundamentally unargued for.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

HOw can you seriously believe that being openly hostile to a signficant portion of your potential customer base, is a good idea?

Imagine a restaurant, that everytime you walk in, the receceptionist greeted you with "Hi you piece of shit, how many assholes are with you today?"

You really think that place is going to last?

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

>HOw can you seriously believe that being openly hostile to a signficant portion of your potential customer base, is a good idea?

That's not what I said. I simply disagreed with the notion that "go woke go broke" is true. There are plenty of instances where this is not true.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

WHY do you WANT these people to, instead of trying to make the best entertainment they can make, in order to make the most money possible for their investors,

instead support the idea of them using their position in production, to shove political (and often sexist and/or racist) propaganda into their.... content?

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

I didn't say I "wanted" them to do anything. I just responded to your claim that "wokeness" always fails financially.

It just doesn't.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

But I DIDN'T say that,

and it is hard to credit that you do NOT support the wokeness. You ARE a pretty hard core lefty, are you not?

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

>But I DIDN'T say that,

Eh, it was implied in your comments about Disney and the CW tanking. "Disney is paying a heavy price for their wokeness. ect. And more and more all the time."

>and it is hard to credit that you do NOT support the wokeness. You ARE a pretty hard core lefty, are you not?

It depends on the show. Obvious social lecturing can be bad if it's very clumsy.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

1 Nope, i was very clear that I was making a general statement about a large trend, all the room in the world for shows to buck that trend now and even into the future.

2. So, you support it, if it is done subtlely? Why? Do the professional film makers NOT have a professional and ethical responsibility to their investors to make as much money as possible, AND an artistic responsibility to their fans to be respect their artistic vision?

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

1. Plenty of shows "buck" the trend. I mean, it depends on what you consider "woke" - but tons of modern TV shows are successful. I just highlighted some of the more obvious or widely accused ones there.

2. A lot of media will have showrunners that are trying to push a message. It's nothing new. BSG had many messages. Scrubs had many messages.

And no, I don't think there is necessarily a "professional and ethical responsibility" to just make as much money as possible. Most shows have a specific theme, or genre that would preclude them from being able to do that. That would mean everything would become sterile PG-rated content designed for easily family consumption.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

1. And plenty are not. BILLIONS of dollars lost or left on the table, huge franchises ruined, careers ruined, and for what? I really feel bad for Ruby Rose. I loved her on Dark Matter and then she got BURNED by the cw deciding to just make Batwoman complete shit.

2. If you take money from someone who is making an INVESTMENT into your work, it is done on the expectation that you will make a good faith effort to make them a PROFIT. And as someone with my retirement partially invested in the stock market, I can tell you that if I found out that my fund(s) was investing with some asshole who didn't feel a responsibility to make us a profit, and grow our money I would be furious.

3. GIVE me a good example of a show that has a "Specific theme or genre" that would preclude them from being able to try to make as much profit as possible for their investors.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

1. Most shows fail for reasons other than whatever political or social messaging they're accused of.

2. Most movies, literature, tv shows will to varying degrees will have some level of political or social commentary in them. It's argubaly unavoidable depending on the subject matter.

3. How popular do you think this: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13872248/ could be? Really? (This is a movie)

I would also argue that Dark (TV show) is too complex for mass media consumption in the way an MCU film is.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

1. Oddly the more focus someone puts into making propaganda, the less they seem to have for making actual entertainment. There are exceptions. James Cameron can certainly make woke shit that is visually stunning for one example. But making a successful show is difficult enough without purposefully handicapping yourself.

2. IF the commentary is part of the artistic vision of the creator, then the GOOD FAITH effort is still being done. It the Critical Drinker would call out such a show, I would happily argue against him on that case. I challange you to find an example of him doing that.

3. Horror shows often make plenty of money. I've seen plenty of successful shows or comics based on that type of premise. I'm generally not a fan, but that one looks fairly well done and I expect that the people that put money in, are getting a nice profit. At least I hope so.

In the context of that movie, explain your point about how it would need to be changed to " sterile PG-rated conten".

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

1. I mean, I gave you many examples above. Unless you think The Last of Us wasn't "woke"? or Euphoria? Or For All Mankind?

2. You don't think the social messaging that the Critical Drinker scrutinises isn't often intended by the creators? Or do you mean *original creator* or something?

3. Gory Horror shows have a glass ceiling compared to many other genres. The successful comic that movie is based on is "Crossed". It's got a cult following. Hardly mainstream comics. Do you really think that a gory horror movie where people get turned into violent serial killers has the same potential ceiling as an MCU blockbuster?

Also, thoughts on the Dark TV show? Do you think that has the name recognition and ease of accessibility to be as 'big' as, idk, Emily in Paris or Loki?

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

1. Oh, you still pretending that I claimed that all woke shows will fail, despite me explicitly and clearly saying otherwise?

2. The people taking money from investors to make a show, have a responsibility to make a good faith effort to make a show that will make a PROFIT for the investors. They also have a responsibility to any would be fans, especially if there are pre-existing fans, to try to make an enjoyable piece of entertainment. IF they betray either/both of those to inject political propaganda into the work, that is a morally and ethically wrong.

3. The economics in investing in a horror movie as opposed to a movie that would possibly appeal to a broader audience is something that that investor can make an informed decision about. Now the investor giving his money to a movie producer and seeing say... that trailer and thinking he was going to make some money and then he finds out that the first 30 mintues of the movie are spent following a lesbian reporter duo discovering that the disease was made by an evul white guy who was too stupid to follow safety rules, because AMERICA FUCK YEA!! would be more what I am speaking of.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

1. Right, but it didn't look like that initially.

2. That's not relevant to what I said. You don't think the social messaging that the Critical Drinker scrutinises isn't often intended by the creators (as in the showrunners)? If you're complaining about the MCU or franchise films changing the source material to modernise them, then honestly, I couldn't give much of a shit personally. Grown men obsessing over Disney and the MCU is pretty laughable.

3. The point is that some genres are more likely to succeed than others in terms of financial success. Do you have any instances, by the way, where investors were somehow tricked by the showrunners?

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

1. Yeah, it did. I was clear.

2. The creator has the responsibility to make a good faith effort to make the most entertaining show he can. IF some "social messaging" is part of his artistic vision then it is NOT a betrayal of that responsibility to do so. If it is NOT then it is morally and ethically wrong.

This is mine, and I believe, the critical drinker's, position.

3. I don't know that that is true, nor do I see how it is relevant. An investor can choose to invest in whatever genre of movie he wants and they have. So what?

4. EXAMPLE? Sure. All of disney. Disney shareholders want to make money on their investment and instead the company has been working with woke creative types to pursue a lefty woke agenda, losing or leaving on the table, BILLIONS of dollar. They managed to get me to not even care about the Han Solo movie. Do you know how hard that was for them? But they managed.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

1. I disagree. You didn't make that clear at all.

2. Okay.

3. You unironically think that a neo-noir set in Czechoslovakia in the 1930s, or some magical realism film set in Iran has as much potential for success as generic capeshit movie? I was pointing out that some genres are just going to have a lower glass ceiling than others by nature that they don't appeal to as much people. Just like a death metal song is not going to be as competitive as dance-pop.

4. Have any shareholders actually complained about being tricked?

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

1. You saw what you wanted to see, your political enemy being sterotypicially simplistic. Very convienent for you.

3. And how is that relevant to your point that being anti-woke would lead to everything being bland shit?

4. I've seen some interesting comments from the current head of disney directed at his board and shareholders, about promising to "dial down the woke stuff". That is not something such an ass would offer, without getting negative feedback.

Oh, here's one.

https://allears.net/2023/04/05/ceo-bob-iger-responds-to-accusations-of-disneys-woke-agenda/

Here is him claiming he will "quite it".

https://video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=bob+iger+promises+to+reduce+woke+culture&type=E210US739G0#id=51&vid=0a3927430847dc329e89ef32a5ea8e2f&action=click

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

1. Can you name me some successful woke TV shows or films then? From your perspective?

3. That's not what I said. I said that if your only goal was to appeal to as many people as possible everything would be bland, family-friendly romps. This is why modern mainstream cinema is so utterly inoffensive and unthinking.

I think it is odd of Disney, or their CEO to think that 'wokism' is somehow specifically hurting their brand here given that it doesn't impact most other things alleged to contain 'woke' elements. Although I don't really know why so many adults are so obsessed with shitty disney remakes and the latest Marvel Capeshit XIV in the first place.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

1. Avatar obviously. Complete woke shit, visually stunning, made tons of money.

3. Targetting niche markets, such as horror to make money has been a thing forever. The idea that NOT being woke, is somehow also NOT doing that, is ... there is no reason to believe that is an issue. You are grasping at straws now.

4. The point was, that there is a professional and ethical responsible owed to make a good faith effort to make a profit for investors. DISNEY has NOT been doing that, they have been instead been pushing a political agenda. You asked for an example of an investor complaining. I gave you one, adn in a context that strongly suggested that it was a concern of many of the shareholders, since the ceo responded so seriously. My point is thus supported. People making woke shows are thus being unethical.

5. The way you feel a need to minimize the Superhero genre, is many things, but most importantly here, irrelevant. Plenty clearly do care. The Disnesy ceo obviously really cares, at least about the money they make or lose him and his company and his shareholders. I bet all those disney employees who lost their jobs, because of his unethical and unprofessional behavior, care a lot.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

3. I wasn't talking about 'woke' here at all. Just the notion that every release in movie or tv should try to appeal to as many people as possible. This would make everything bland and family-friendly if fully followed.

4. This doesn't necessarily mean shareholders felt duped. It could've just been concern. In any case, the "People making woke shows are being unethical" I assume is not a global comment because you've already conceded that they can succeed, and I've also given you some examples of that too.

5. It's just bizarre to see so many grown adults create angry review video after angry review video on content that is frankly, made for children, meanwhile there's actual high quality modern mature content that they could be watching.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

3. No, it wouldn't. A man could make a horror movie designed to appeal to the whole of hte horror genre fans, OR he could make on, and make it woke, which does nothing to serve the story but does insult half the potential viewing audience.

This is a simple concept. You should not be struggling with it.

4. Just becasue they recklessly gambled with the money of their investors and managed to NOT fail, does not mean that they were still not doing wrong. AND, there is the question of the difference between making SOME money and making even more money. Word of mouth. How many movies have you heard, "It was OK". So that person went and saw it. And maybe others who are really into that story will go see it do, even if they heard it was just "ok". But plenty will NOT. And that is money that hte woke creator just left on the table, because he put politics ahead of his ethical responsibility to his investors.

5. The stories we tell ourselves, in a culture, are important. To pretend they are not, is actually irrational. You can put on airs and look down on mass entertainment as not Art or Literature, and that's fine, but to deny it's importance is silly
AND, it is worth noting that the wokesters agree with that, otherwise, tehy would not be so determined to control it and stuff it with their ideology. AND you are on their side, so your pretense of being above that, is bs. You are right here in this thread with me, part of the conflict.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

3. And there aren't as many horror genre fans as there are MCU fans. Also, that would mean that all horror films would become more and more generic. Lets talk within sci-fi: Star Wars is much more accessible than Hard Sci-Fi, no?

4. "Woke", in the sense that you're using it are simply instances where the writers or authors implement implicitly or explicitly support specific social and political values in their material, and it informs their writing. Moving on from 'woke' specifically almost every single piece of media ever has done this. Battlestar Galactica did it. Scrubs did it. Tons of major movies do it. Most US content implicitly endorses western values and capitalism.

5. I'm more noting that the people who complain about the writing of the MCU simply need to diversify their content here. I'm not talking to casuals. I'm talking to alleged cinephiles who do know better. That they don't suggests they're massive grifters, or not as diverse as they suggest.

How am I on "their side"?

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

3. So, the film is targetting a smaller audience. Why is this relevant to anything?

3b. SUre. So? What is your point?

4. Batwoman ran a trailers where the character stated that batman's suit would be perfect, when it fit a woman.

That was anti-male sexism, and it violated the canon of the I.P. where the character previously looked up to Batman, instead of resenting him for being male, AND it insulted all potential male viewers by being anti-male. That is more than simply "informing their writing". If you realize you have lost the argument, just admit it, don't play the standad of lefty game of derailing the discussion into stupid semantics.

5. Criticizing youtubers who have other jobs for not being able to stay on top of all films, to an extent you think they should, is silly. "diverse"? That statement you made with that word had no meaning.

6. YOu are clearly on their side. Please do not claim otherwise. All you will do is rob yourself of credibility.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

3. That some films, shows, books just aren't going to be capable of huge audiences because of the nature of their themes and genre.

4. I genuinely can't imagine getting so offended by such a throwaway line lmao

5. I've said more than that. I've said the Critical Drinker has serious tunnel vision and genuinely 75% of his content is Marvel/Star Wars/Franchise related.

6. Still not sure how. What would I have to say, or think, to *not* be on their side?

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

3. . Horror shows might naturally have smaller potential maximums than say... a movie with a wider appeal. Yet plenty o them were made, PRE WOKE ERA and made plenty of money. You are grasping at straws, at best.

4. Your airy dismissal is noted. My point stands. That is more than simply "informing their writing". YOur counter argument was simply not true. The woke creators are being unethical.

5. I understand. Your defense of wokism is difficult adn you have to say SOMETHING. Whetther it is relevant or makes sense or not.

6. Stop defending their unethincal behavior with suprious arguments.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

3. Sure. That's my point. Sometimes shows and films don't want to appeal to as many people as possible as it would detract from their story.

4. And not all 'woke' creators are like that.

5. I originally made this thread to point out how rather narrow the Critical Drinkers field of view is. This has nothing to do with how ass the MCU is, but there's simply much more out there.

6. Do you consider "The Last of us" woke? Are all things woke all equal? What about Handmaids Tale, or House of the Dragons?

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

3. Pointless point. A writer with an artistic vision of a horror movie writing a horror movie is making a good faith effort. If that same writer cuts portions of horror to include a love affair between two black lesbian nuns, he is not. Your pretense of not understanding this is silly.

4. If they are being woke in their work, then they are being putting their politics ahead of their ethical responsibility to make profitable entertainment. That you want to pretend otherwise is you being on their side.

5. There is nothing wrong with having a supposedly "narrow" field of view. I follow plenty of content creators that are FAR more niche than that. It is an odd thing to complain about and a very odd thing to go on and on over.

6. Why? What does that have to do with how you could stop being on their side?

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

3. There are more things than injecting 'wokism' into films that can reduce the maximum audience potential. Look up the "Crossed comics" on google image search. It's horror. Do you think all horror fans will be into it?

4. Again, people have been "putting their politics" into works of fiction since fiction began. "Woke" is merely a trending tendency now, in so much that it exists. And I don't think the only goal should always be to make "profitable entertainment". If that was the only goal, then it would be a slow boring race until everything becomes safe family-friendly franchise media.

5. There is if you use this narrow field of view to complain about the topic you're focusing on. It's literally like someone criticising all modern music based on top 40 chart hits. I'm only repeating it because people in this thread dispute my original claim that the Critical Drinker seems to be very selective, and arguably ill-informed about modern media.

6. I'm asking you. Do you consider those shows "woke"? I enjoy(ed) them.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

3. That would be relevant if I claimed that being woke was thee only thing that caused films to lose money. Time to drop this line of argument. It is nonsense. And I have crushed it.

4, Your denial that there is a problem, is the type of shit that disnesy was doing years ago. Even they gave up that ghost.

5. BUT, you also minimize and ridicule that whole section of entertainment. Perhaps it is you that is ignoring the relevance of a genre that you dislike.

6. From what I saw, last of us was woke. DId not watch it. Critical drinker actually gave it a nod, but I was not impressed with what I heard. Handmaid's tale sounded like lefty prop raised to retard levels.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

Are you ever going to answer any of this?

Black Sails portrays the British Empire negatively. Is it anti-British propaganda?

Mr. Robot scrutinises capitalism and contemporary US culture. Is it anti-American propaganda?

Severance criticised office culture, and indirectly capitalism. Is it anti-American propaganda?

Altered Carbon is heavily anti-capitalism. It's cyberpunk for goodness sake. Is it anti-American propaganda?

Twisted Metal (2023) depicts a gang police officers in a post-apocalyptic setting run by a psychopath who 'abuse' the power they've given themselves. It's clearly a commentary on police abuse in the USA. Is it anti-American propaganda?

Man in the High Castle suggests the USA would be willing to collaborate and work with Nazi Germany as a puppet state. Is it anti-American propaganda?

The Plot Against America imagines an alternative history where Charles Lindbergh runs and wins the presidency. Depicting the US drift down a dark path. Is that anti-American propaganda?

Warrior portrays anti-Chinese racism in 19th century San Francisco. Is it anti-American propaganda?

Arthdal Chronicles is set in a fantasy world, but one clearly somewhat modelled on Ancient Korea. They're massive racist slavers. Is that anti-Korean propaganda?

Carnival Row uses the Faerie race in their universe as stand-ins for the Irish (they're persecuted second-class citizens often with Irish accents). It's set in a Victorian-esque world. Is it therefore anti-British propaganda?

Hellbound is a Korean show that clearly criticises their largest Christian sect, and flips on the idea of rapture (people being "raptured" to hell, rather than heaven). Is it anti-Christian propaganda?

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

>I've answered that question repeatedly. YOu are being a stonewalling asshole now.

No, you have not. You've answered neither. Almost all of your points remain unsourced claims.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

Yes, I have. If you truly...somehow blinded yourself to it, you can just go reread the thread. It is all there. We are pretty stuck here. You are refusing to engage seriously, more and more.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

No, you have not answered those questions. Each time you deny it I will repeat it.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

You're either lying or insane.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

No, you have not answered those questions. Each time you deny it I will repeat it.

reply

[–] M1sterDoct0r (3961) 7 months ago

Hey, I'm all for bashing MegaCorps. I'm not American, so I was genuinely surprised at the amount of "Disney worship" that goes on over there.

I knew about Apple but holy shit that shit was surprising.

The fact that almost all their 2023 offerings were a bomb might be the "wake up" they needed.

Or they'll just double down & go bankrupt. Who knows.

One final thing, the thing about "pandering" is, AT LEAST make sure whoever you chose to pander to buys/pays for your shit. Case in point, look at the comicbook industry vs Manga.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

They never do. These business majors graduate from college after 4 years of indoctrination by lefty academics, and they are all unable to even think that maybe their mistakes are the problem.

You can see it with the bud light disaster.

The ceo fired the woman he hired. He changed course. But there was never any admission that he made a mistake nor an apology to the customers they insulted.

BUT, the market share is still lost, profits are down. That for some reason there is no one in the room to point out to the guy that this is all on him,

is nice for him to live in denial, but the cost is still paid by the shareholders.

reply

[–] M1sterDoct0r (3961) 7 months ago

Hey, maybe Apple will just buy them out with their "unlimited money" & all their money problems will be solved.

They've been rumors in the past few years that Apple have been looking to do that.

Yay, all hail our corporate overlords!

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

Hopefully the new investors will actually want to make profits.

I saw a funny video of elon musk the other day, talking about how he has let go 80% of twitter staff and twitter is running just fine.

And I hear they are actually doing a far better job responding to reports of child porn.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

Why won't you answer my question regarding specific examples I gave you?

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

Because we have enough examples in the other sub thread. More examples will only give you more chances to fixate on meaningless details and confuse the issue.

It is clear that you realize that your having trouble defending your position here. You are increasingly going to logical fallacies and spin to bolster your counter points.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

>Because we have enough examples in the other sub thread. More examples will only give you more chances to fixate on meaningless details and confuse the issue.

No, we don't? I don't recall many examples being raised. I'd like to know where you stand on the examples I gave to contextualise how prudish and puritan you are.

I'm at the point where I will just refuse to answer any further questions from you until you respond to some of my examples.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

3. I didn't say you did say that "being woke" is the only reason that films lose money. I bring this point up because in other points you have said that films and tv shows should focus on making as much profit as possible. Trying to maximise profit has always risked damaging the quality of a tv show or film by dumbing it down, or sacrificing writing for sensation.

4. I think I've made it clear that Disney and MCU have all kinds of problems (from what I can see), but since it doesn't remotely impact entertainment generally I fail to see why I should care.

5. I agree, I can be dismissive of superhero fiction, franchise films and action slush, but they've always existed in the main. Certainly the Critical Drinkers assessment of what counts as popular TV is completely wrong and misleading. Critical Drinker 100% has options and he surely must know this.

6. Handmaids Tale is essentially a "what if" every single misogynistic state and law combined into one. It's unrealistic, and you have to suspend your disbelief. But it's dystopian ficton and done well (for much of it).

TLOU is accused of being woke, but it did very well. The episodes most revered are actually some of its allegedy 'wokey' ones.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

3. Movie makers have to balance the needs of the market with their creative vision. That goes without saying. I assumed you knew that. I knew that. That is utterly irreelvant to the discussion on the fact that woke movie or tv show makers are being unethical when they instead decide to use their show to spread and support political propaganda.

4. LOL. It is silly to claim that woke is limited to disney and MCU. Indeed, that is an absurd statement from you.

5. Where did the Critical Drinker make an assessment of what counts as "popular tv"?

6.Oh? Which state has a law requiring women to be bred against their will?

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

3. Do you consider it unethical when any writer or showrunner trys to make social or political commentary in their work?

4. It's not (if by "woke" you just mean "progressive"), but it's not remotely harming the TV landscape. It's as good as it has ever been, arguably.

5. Well he primarily focuses on movies (he's done multiple videos on "Why modern movies suck" although whether or not he goes into TV there I don't), but I can find a tweets:

https://twitter.com/TheCriticalDri2/status/1516660803092500483 (critical of Netflix)

I will add though that his selection bias of what he reviews here is very noticeable.

6. By "state" I wasn't referring to US states, just in general and throughout history. It was more influenced by Iran than any US state.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

3. Does the investor's know that that is the intent of the work? Or did the investors think that they were investing in entertainment in hte hopes of getting a return on their investment?

4. Really? So you believe that nonsense about The Rings of Power making money for Amazon?

5. News report on netflix taking a BIG hit, and he made an assessment on his views on why. His take seemed reasonable.

6. Yet they project it onto AMERICA? A nation founded on the concept of Freedom? LOL. Woke.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

3. The two do not preclude each other. You've already conceded that it doesn't necessarily make content fail.

4. Do you think Rings of Power defines the entirety of the modern TV landscape? Anyone can find shit shows from any year that flopped. The point is that the modern TV landscape (last decade) is easily the richest, most stylistically diverse and most high budget that it's ever been.

5. I was specifically referring to his "1. Shit programming." Netflix easily has the largest, most diverse streaming catalogue.

6. It's an American production adapting a book by an American author. Did you expect them to set it in Iran, or some other country? And guess what? Handmaids Tale has been widely successful. It has managed 5 seasons, and a 6 is in production.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

3, Yet, you did not answer the question. Why not?

4. I think it is a HUGE example of woke fail, out side of Disney and MCU.

5. And a lot of woke shit. Hell they hired OBAMA at great expense.

6. Or a fictious country. sure why not. You think that there are not potential viewers who would love a good dystopian fiction, who are also patriotic Americans, in AMERICA?

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

3. I imagine if they lied or misled the investor, that would be unfair - but I would expect, if I was supporting a TV show/film for the creators to imbue, to some degree (assuming it was politically orientated in some sense, lets say) their political or social ideals or attitudes. It's unavoidable.

4. Sure, but by-in-large there are hundreds of highly regarded TV shows in the last decade. Better than the decade before.

5. To narrate documentaries.... And Netflix is no more "woke" than any other major streaming company. It also has tons of highly regarded TV shows. Not that CD watches many of them, of course.

6. I mean, the USA has been annexed by a nation called "Gilead" (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) so in a sense that has happened.

>You think that there are not potential viewers who would love a good dystopian fiction, who are also patriotic Americans, in AMERICA?

Not sure what you're asking here.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

3. You keep pretending that our complaint about woke is just the attitudes of the creative types coming though their process, instead of political propaganda.

4.Highly regarded? What does that mean? Loved by lefty critics?

5. Right, even more absurd, to pay that kind of money for narration. And no more woke than other companies? Wow. What faint praise. LOL.

6. I've talked to a fan of the show. She was clear that in her mind it was a comment on modern day America and that women today are in danger of terrible oppression. It is woke shit spreading leftywing propaganda.

7. How many possible viewers did they lose by giving in to their NEED to put America and right wingers down?

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

3. But I don't see how from your perspective that Battlestar Galactica doesn't have "political propaganda" in them.

4. High IMDB, trakt.tv, simkl, serializd user ratings. Often high RT ratings.

5. Okay? That's on Netflix. They obviously judged he would be a big draw. And Netflix again, has lots of great shows.

6. It was essentially a nightmare scenario of all tools of oppression enacted on women ever. Here's an article on it: https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/the-handmaids-tale-is-more-like-iran-than-modern-america

7. No idea. I doubt many at all to be honest. Are you unironically, by the way, complaining about any TV show or film that might indirectly or directly denigrate right-wingers or conservatives in their narrative? Or present a dystopian, or post-apocalyptic setting in the United States?

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

3. IMO, Battlestar Galatica would be an example of a production where hte anti-American leftism of Hollywood "informed" the product, while the Rings of Power is woke.

Your behavior is common in lefties trying to defend their sides' bad behavior. Pretending not to see nuance, is a good way to bog down a discussion in meaningless semantics thus avoiding having to admit that your side is doing something very, very wrong.

4, People have been working HARD to ignore Hollywoods' anti-American political messaging. I remember the first Spiderman where mary jane refused to enter the Washington Memorial because it "was built by slaves"

It was one scene, and I managed to ignore it, and enjoy the overall movie. But, in truth, both the character and EVERYONE involved in making that scene who did not point out how fucking stupid and offensive it was,

were woke assholes.

5. Did they really? I mean, OBAMA? DOCUMENTARIES? Did they really think they were going to make money off of that deal?

6. It is propaganda designed to spread the narrative, in a time when feminists are already seriously harming men with their anti-male bigotry and oppression.

7. HOld it right there buddy. It is not just a "post-apocalyptic setting in the United States?" but a setting where most of the dystopian elements come from MEN, men who clearly are seen as representatives of those that woke hollywood hate today.

And yes, any reasonable person would think that could be offesnive to signficant numbers of potential viewers who would love a good sci fi dystopian drama but miight be turned off by anti-male and anti-American propaganda.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

3. You think BSG is influenced by "anti-american leftism"? In what way?

I am pointing out that there *is* nuance. There's levels and layers to all of this. It's not as simple as a product being "woke" and therefore awful propaganda.

4. What anti-American messaging? Dear me you are a delicate little baby who cries about any negativity about any part of American culture or history. I just googled it and realised you were referring to "Spider-Man Homecoming" and not the Toby Macquire one. Seems stupid but good god man stop caring about fucking marvel: https://www.thewrap.com/spider-man-homecoming-washington-monument/

5. He's got a good narrating voice and is well known. It's not any more deep than that.

6. Or it's an adaptation of a book that imagines a dystopian world where, in the context of collapsing fertility and crashing birth rates, a religious cult rises in the USA and overthrows the United States government and implements a totalitarian theocracy called Gilead whereby remaining fertile women are forced to become Handmaids (hence the name) for prominent ruling Gilead families and function as surrogates for the infertile Gilead wives. It's highly unlikely of course, but it's literally based in fiction. It's an alternative reality.

7. Okay. So? That mean it's bad? We shouldn't make any dystopian story (The Handmaids Tale is not post-apocalyptic) that puts men in any kind of primary villainous role in society? Also the notion there's any serious anti-male oppression in society is laughable.

8. So you are another delicate little baby who simply can't cope with any post-apocalyptic or dystopian setting based in the USA. Every Dystopian setting based in the geographical area of the USA is wrong? Also the premise of Handmaids Tale is that the US government has been destroyed by a fanatical religious cult, and most of the USA annexed. I fail to see how that's "anti-American".

And lets put it this way, if the Handmaids Tale wasn't about an oppressive male-controlled patriarcharal society where fertile women were forced to becoming Handmaids to give birth to children as proxies then it simply **WOULDN'T BE WHAT IT IS**. You are literally complaining about its premise entirely. The only way you could be satisfied at all would be if it didn't exist at all.

And again, The Handmaids Tale is obviously successful. The potential pearl clutching snowflake audience that cry about dystopian settings based in the USA, or settings that might criticise the USA or depict oppressive male societies are obviously not a huge potential audience.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

3. Nuance is not an excuse to pretend there is not a problem.

4. The character, an American citizen, refused to enter a memorial dedicated to the Father of our/her country. And you pretend to not see anti-Americanism there? LOL.

5. And what did you base that on? Are you privy to the internal documents of netflix? Or can you read minds?

6. It feeds into some serious anti-Christian bigotry among the Left in our society. With tons of political implications. Your willful blindness here is noted.

7. The point was it shows AGAIN, the willingness of Hollywood to put politics ahead of attracting viewers.

8 And your denial of anti-male oppression is absurd. ME TOO for an example was and IS a major violation of due process for men. For ONE example.

9. Your ridicule is noted.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

3. There's no reason to think it's remotely a problem that is seriously impacting the quality of modern TV.

4. I honestly couldn't begin to care less about the MCU, personally - but it's genuinely an utterly frivolous thing to cry about.

5. People have always found him quite charismatic. I'm speculating, of course. But he's literally been picked up to narrate documentaries. What on earth could it have to do with 'wokism'? What's your evidence?

6. So it's wrong, inherently, to ever portray Christianity in any sense in a negative way? Shows should never do anything but portray Christianity as perfect? Note that the Sons of Jacob isn't Christian (a heretical spin-off), and they are literally depicted as persecuting Christians in the show.

7. So anything that shows the US as post-apocalyptic or dystopian is inherently anti-american, or "political"?

8. What you insist without evidence can be dismissed withou evidence. MeTOO was primarily social consequences, not legal. In addition, are you saying that the Handmaids Tale simply shouldn't even exist? Like the premise is inherently wrong?

9. It is utterly laughable. You genuinely come across as a snowflake who cries whenever the USA is depicted negatively in anything (even indirectly).

Does Man in the High Castle upset you?

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

3. The examples of woke shit are too many to credit that.

4. So, when you asked "what anti-Americanism", why did you even ask if you were just going to dismiss it? Or, did you think that you could argue against it, and then realized that I was right, so you just went with an airy dismissal as your only option?

5. You want evidence of the internal thinking of netflix ceo's? Seriously? LOL.

6, It demonstrates again, that the show is political propaganda designed to have a political impact.

7. Depends on how it is done. IN this case, it is political and anti-American.

8. LOL. Metoo, and it's followon BELIEVE WOMEN, led to people ignoring due process. Both in court and in more "social" situations. Your denial of this is you supporting anti-male oppression.

8. The pushing of this narrative, in having real world implications. Increasingly your side is using the narrative as an excuse to use state power against it's policial enemies, or even just regular people that they consider problems.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

3. I suspect you and me have very different definitions of "woke" shit but there are hundreds of quality TV shows from just the USA since 2015, say.

4. Is that it? Is that your epic example?

5. I mean, you are the one who bough up Obama's hiring in the first place.

6. So anything that negatively portrays or scrutinises Christianity in any sense is "propaganda"? Note again that the Sons of Jacob isn't Christian (they are a heretical spin-off), and they are literally depicted as persecuting Christians in the show.

7. How is it anti-american? No reason to believe this.

8. People have the right to associate with who they want, rightly or wrongly.

9. What "narrative" are you referring to? You do realise that a lot of serialised TV shows now are dark in tone, right? They criticise all kinds of things. It could be capitalism, american history, american politics. Fiction has always indirectly drawn on real-life issues. Is that wrong? Should the USA always be portrayed heroically?

9b. What state power are you referring to?

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

4. It is a good one. Given time I could probably do "Better", but it is good enough. Only an anti-Americans asshole would refuse to enter the Washington Monument because MAYBE slaves.

5. It was an absurd amount of money for nothing or little of value, from a company that should be trying to make money for it's investors.

6. Please stop trying to restate what I say, as an absolute, so you can then ridicule the strawman you have created. I said what I said. Address it or admit I am right.

7. Supporting the anti-american and anti-Christian narrative that is dividing and harming this nation.

8. Your support of innocent people having their lives ruined just becasue they are men, is noted. Especially since you just ignored the poitn about due process in courts.

9. The lefty narrative.

10 Such as requiring verbal compliance with transgender pronouns or being fired. Arresting people for self defense, if they have wrong politics. Going after Trump with a massive witch hunt. ECT.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

4. I don't think that would make someone anti-American at all.

5. Did it flop? Do we have any data on this?

6. What is there to address? You haven't seen the show and have misrepresented it completely. The actual religion in the show isn't actually Christianity, and Christians are shown as persecuted. The lead of Handmaids Tale is a committed Catholic.

7. No reason to believe it does this. The USA remnants are depicted in the series, and are depicted as good guys.

8. I didn't support anything. Do you have any examples of people convincted who were innocent in courts?

9. So any fiction that may have a left-wing ethos underpinning its writing is wrong?

10. That surely would be up to the company in many states by law. And it's not a legal matter. "Arresting people for self-defence" I assume you mean shooting invaders - this will always end up in cases where it isn't obvious. No reason to believe that Trump is being targeted in a witch hunt, but rather all the stupid decisions he's made over the years have come home. Not sure what any of this has to do with TV shows though.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

4. Sure you don't. LOL. Yeah, George Washington, father of our country and the stupid bitch refused to enter his memorial. Complete anti-American woke propaganda.

5. Hasn't come out yet. But it said that Obama got "high 8 figures for the deal". Yeah, that's going to be in the black. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

6. Do you believe that Christian Nationalists are a significant force in today's American political scene?

7. Said that man that ridiculed the idea of men being oppressed today. You lose a lot of credibility there.

8. I've certainly seen due process ignored. Your support of this is clear.

9. It has to be considered with regards to it's intent. And today to push the lefty narrative, is very harmful and oppressive.

10. Your dismissal of my examples is noted. Your willful blindness is noted.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

4. Anti-american would be a rejection of representative democracy. A rejection of western culture.

5. So we don't know. Not sure what this has to do with any commentary on 'woke' anyway.

6. Yes. Or elements of. Or lets just say "Christian fundamentalists". I thought this before I watched Handmaids Tale, and it had nothing to do with why I think it.

7. Again: no reason to believe this.

8. I'll ask again: Do you have any examples of people convicted who were innocent in courts?

9. So any TV shows that are written by left-leaning people are wrong, and should never be written ever? You do realise a lot of American film has been pro-US military coded, right? Did that bother you?

10. Being fired is not an example of the state persecuting you. And again, you asserting things without evidence is not a substitute for an argument.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

4, It is a rejection of one of the greatest symbols of America, and you refuse to admit is anti-American. You are stonewalling.

5. LOL. You think a documentary on a streaming service will generate enough traffic to justify over 50 million dollars? LOL.

6. The concept of Christian Nationalism is used to justify anti-Christian and anti-American bigotry. Indeed, that is nearly the ONLY context I have seen it in.

7. Your willful blindness is noted. Your support for opression is noted.

8. None that you would accept. STONEWALLING denial is a powerful rhetorical tool.

9. It has to be considered with regards to it's intent. And today to push the lefty narrative, is very harmful and oppressive.

10. It is if you work for a government agency. Your denial of this is just you stonewalling. AND, the overall spread of it though society thanks to people like you infiltrating HR departments and courts, is still political oppression.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

4. I repeat: Anti-american would be a rejection of representative democracy. A rejection of western culture. Is someone anti-British if they think the British Empire was bad?

5. When did I say that?

6. https://www.npr.org/2023/02/14/1156642544/more-than-half-of-republicans-support-christian-nationalism-according-to-a-new-s

And again, are you saying that it's always wrong to depict Christianity negatively?

7. Is the state oppressing men? No evidence by you is provided. Getting into cultural and social issues is highly nebulous. There's social pushback regarding historical grievances, some justified, some unjustified.

8. I maybe wouldn't. I want to know what you're basing your position on.

9. Is any form of entertainment that could be so described as "left-wing" "harmful and oppressive"? Also, you come across as a snowflakey social justice warrior when you describe entertainment existing as "oppressive". Or a prudish censor from the 1980s crying about satanism from dungeon and dragons.

10. If someone is fired for their sexuality, would you call that oppression? If someone is fired for being anti-Israel and pro-palestine, lets say, would you call that oppression?

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

4. George Washington is the Fatheer of our Nation. Rejecting him is anti-Americanism. A nation where NO past sins are EVER forgiven or forgotten, is not a nation that can survive. That is the narrative that that scene pushed. Your denial of this clear fact is you stonewallilng.

5. When you act as though it might be a legit finiancial motive.

6. Standard dishonest lefty tactic. Make a point to be addressed then make ANOTHER point, more of a strawman, and if I don't address the second stupid one, it creates the illusion though a logical fallacy of accepting the point. Try again, this time without the bullshit.

7. My point stands. METOO and BELIEVE women have been very oppressive to men. Your denial is absurd stonewalling. AND that is just an example of a much larger trend.

8. Regular reports of cases that clearly would not even be FILED, if the prosecutor did not expect the reasonable doubt standard to be completely ignored. And times when it clearly was.

9 Your pretense that entertainment is not important is silly. It is clearly not believed by the hordes of lefties on your side of the political divide that are dedicating their lives to stuffing political propaganda into it. Your posititon here is just stonewalling.

10. If someone is fired for not agreeing with lefty poliitcal beliefs, is that oppression? Especially as whole departments of the government end up bein dominated by and weaponized by hard core leftists, who like their fellow travelers in entertainment, put their politics ahead of their professional and ethincal responsibilities.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

4. That's not a "fact". That's an opinion. I repeat: Anti-american would be a rejection of representative democracy. A rejection of western culture. Is someone anti-British if they think the British Empire was bad?

5. So why did they hire him then? You do realise that Netflix, by the way, have platformed comedians that made transpeople very angry?

6. You alleged that the concept of Christian nationalism was invented by entertainment. This just isn't true.

7. And they've also helped contribute to putting away historical sex offenders.

8. You have no way of knowing this.

9. Your example so-far apparently being a throwaway line in Spiderman, and your complete fundamental misunderstanding of The Handmaids Tale (or your notion that America is too pure to be ever scrutinised). Modern media is broadly progressive in ethos but this has a lot to do with the fact that social conservatives are terrible at fiction.

10. I asked first. I wouldn't regard that as state oppression though. I'm actually in favour of having political beliefs be protected in that context. So your employer can't just fire you for your opinion on politics. Are you?

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

4. You are simply stonewalling now.

5. Are you implying that unless an organization is utterly and completely left on every single action and issue, that there cannot be any valid complaint?

6. I did not.

7. So, your response to my complaint about loss of due process is that they "also put away sex offenders". That sounds very much like you accept the loss of due process for men. That is oppression of men, that you claimed did not happen, and here you are supporting it, because "sex offenders".

8. Sure I do. I can look at a case and see that there is no chance of making a good case. If the situtation is extreme enough. I am not a legal professional, but I am not a fool either. That you pretend that it is beyond our ability to judge, is not credible. I am sure that there have been court cases that you disagreed with.

9. Now you are dismissing a fact with spin. Pure stonewalling on your part.

10. Today lefties are putting their political beliefs into HR regulations, including in government staffs, and requiring active agreement, or get fired. This is serious oppression.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

4. Not at all. It's a fundamental disagreement. I disagree with the monarchy in the UK. Does that make me "anti-British"? It's a bedrock of our history.

5. What's the complaint basis regarding Obama? Other than maybe it didn't work out and they wasted money? Companies do this all the time.

6. Sorry, you said the only reason people are concerned about it is due to entertainment.

7. I am still waiting for examples of men arrested and ultimately convicted absent of due process.

8. I still await examples.

9.Again, I'm contextualising your comments. There's no reason to be angry at modern media based on your examples.

10. Agreement to what? Is this just about pronouns?

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

4. Washington is hte father of this nation. The monument is a symbol of him. She rejected it. She rejected America.

5, Yep. And this time it is an example of their politics trumping their responsibility to their investors.

6. No, I didn't. You are lying. You are purposefully confusing the issue because you know your position is weak as shit.

7. We are past that. You have revealed that you support the violation of due process, ie civil rights for men, in exchange for getting sexual predators. Unless that is part of a general anti-civil rights world view in your case, then it is clear evidence of anti-male bigotry, AND support for the oppression that is going on.

AND, most importantly, it is a concession that the BELIEVE WOMEN movement was a violation of men's civil rights and thus oppression of males. Thus your denial of that, is proven wrong by your own admission.

8. And you are already planning to dismiss any examples with, "but you're no legal expert" aren't you? No matter how clear the examples.

9. My point about the scene from spider man was valid, even if you disagree with it. You dismissing it as a "throw away line", was you operating in BAD FAITH.

10. It is about power. Forcing people to lie about what they believe and experience, or be destroyed. A huge step in the formation of a totalitarian society. That you try to spin this as a little thing, is you again operating in bad faith.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

4. So if I reject the monarchy, as a Brit, am I "anti-British"?

5. You are assuming their decision was rooted in "politics". And you have provided no data that suggested it was a failure.

6. So what's the problem with Handmaids Tale?

7. How have I revealed any such thing? When did I endorse the support for people to be charged for crimes they did not commit?

8. Can't do anything if you refuse to provide examples. And no, I was not planning to refer to your stated lack of credentials.

9. It's a laughable thing to throw a tantrum over, it really is. It's genuinely pathetic. You are a sensitive little baby.

10. If someone asks you to call them by a specific name, and you refuse, and you keep doing it - do you think that might cause problems at work?

Also apparently you know nothing about totalitarianism. An employer expecting you to put on the facade of pronouns or names isn't demanding you "think" anything.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

4, She rejected a symbol of the Father of this Country. That is anti-Americanism.

7. When I complained about lack of due process and your response was to justify it. You thus admitted it, and landed on the side of supporting it.

10. THey have no right to demand that I call them something. If they have a problem with me disagreeing with their bizarre choices, that is on them. Requiring me to conform to their demands is oppression.

11. So you are wanting to wrap this up? Makes sense. You have clearly lost and are increasingly stonewalling.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

[deleted]

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

4. So am I anti-British because I "reject" the monarchy?

7. No, I asked you to provide some examples to back your claim. I still wait.

10. That's not how workplaces will ever see it. If someone wants to be called by their full name and you refuse, you might find yourself in trouble just for that.

11. Stonewalling for *what*, exactly? You keep using "stonewalling" in a way that doesn't even seem to match the definition.

And you still refuse to answer my question about the other examples I gave.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

Dude. You're just stonewalling and supporting oppression now.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

What oppression am I supporting? What am I stonewalling?

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

The due process was a clear example of you admitting your support of violating the rights of men.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

When did I support the rights of men being violated anywhere? Quote me.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

Also I note we're fundamentally completely and utterly off-topic from the original thread point that the Critical Drinker is hopelessly out of touch with modern TV and film.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

If you are not wiling to be honest about shit like, your clear admission of support for violating due process, or the clear anti-Americanism of refusing to enter the Washington MEmorial, because "slavery", then you have no credibility for any of your other... points.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

When did I support any violation of due process?

I asked you, as a related question, to the Washington memorial comment if you think I am anti-British because I am against the monarchy? You refuse to answer.

reply

[–] Corbell (8778) 7 months ago

I've answered that question repeatedly. YOu are being a stonewalling asshole now.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

Also, points stand independently. They are right or wrong on their own merits.

I've given plenty of examples of TV shows that the Critical Drinker seems completely ignorant about.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

Black Sails portrays the British Empire negatively. Is it anti-British propaganda?

Mr. Robot scrutinises capitalism and contemporary US culture. Is it anti-American propaganda?

Severance criticised office culture, and indirectly capitalism. Is it anti-American propaganda?

Altered Carbon is heavily anti-capitalism. It's cyberpunk for goodness sake. Is it anti-American propaganda?

Twisted Metal (2023) depicts a gang police officers in a post-apocalyptic setting run by a psychopath who 'abuse' the power they've given themselves. It's clearly a commentary on police abuse in the USA. Is it anti-American propaganda?

Man in the High Castle suggests the USA would be willing to collaborate and work with Nazi Germany as a puppet state. Is it anti-American propaganda?

The Plot Against America imagines an alternative history where Charles Lindbergh runs and wins the presidency. Depicting the US drift down a dark path. Is that anti-American propaganda?

Warrior portrays anti-Chinese racism in 19th century San Francisco. Is it anti-American propaganda?

Arthdal Chronicles is set in a fantasy world, but one clearly somewhat modelled on Ancient Korea. They're massive racist slavers. Is that anti-Korean propaganda?

Carnival Row uses the Faerie race in their universe as stand-ins for the Irish (they're persecuted second-class citizens often with Irish accents). It's set in a Victorian-esque world. Is it therefore anti-British propaganda?

Hellbound is a Korean show that clearly criticises their largest Christian sect, and flips on the idea of rapture (people being "raptured" to hell, rather than heaven). Is it anti-Christian propaganda?

----

I'd actually like an answer to some of this.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

Black Sails portrays the British Empire negatively. Is it anti-British propaganda?

Mr. Robot scrutinises capitalism and contemporary US culture. Is it anti-American propaganda?

Severance criticised office culture, and indirectly capitalism. Is it anti-American propaganda?

Man in the High Castle suggests the USA would be willing to collaborate and work with Nazi Germany as a puppet state. Is it anti-American propaganda?

Warrior portrays anti-Chinese racism in 19th century San Francisco. Is it anti-American propaganda?

Arthdal Chronicles is set in a fantasy world, but one clearly somewhat modelled on Ancient Korea. They're massive racist slavers. Is that anti-Korean propaganda?

Carnival Row uses the Faerie race in their universe as stand-ins for the Irish (they're persecuted second-class citizens often with Irish accents). It's set in a Victorian-esque world. Is it therefore anti-British propaganda?

Hellbound is a Korean show that clearly criticises their largest Christian sect, and flips on the idea of rapture (people being "raptured" to hell, rather than heaven). Is it anti-Christian propaganda?

reply

[–] Satan2016 (23652) 7 months ago

He reviewed Snow White? No, he reviewed the teaser. That's just trolling.
I watch all the sci fi trailers, then read reviews. There was nothing on Apple TV that interested me, it's all overrated.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

>I watch all the sci fi trailers, then read reviews. There was nothing on Apple TV that interested me, it's all overrated.

How would you know that if you've not watched it?

reply

[–] ccr1633 (1436) 7 months ago

So in your view all of the following shows are "great": Warrior, Severance, Silo, Babylon Berlin, Pachinko, The Peripheral (unfortunately cancelled), Dopesick, Slow Horses, Station Eleven, The Bear, Black Bird, Devs.

This is the implication of your initial post. Is that correct? All of these "great" shows deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the once-great franchises like The Terminator, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc. that The Critical Drinker routinely savages?

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

>So in your view all of the following shows are "great": Warrior, Severance, Silo, Babylon Berlin, Pachinko, The Peripheral (unfortunately cancelled), Dopesick, Slow Horses, Station Eleven, The Bear, Black Bird, Devs.

Yeah, they're all pretty highly rated. I wouldn't expect him to review all of them, but that he has missed out so many (and more there I haven't mentioned) is notable.

>This is the implication of your initial post. Is that correct? All of these "great" shows deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the once-great franchises like The Terminator, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, etc. that The Critical Drinker routinely savages?

Yes, if he is genuinely trying to present a balanced view of modern TV rather than just cherrypick shitty marvel and star wars spinoffs. Severance and The Bear were literally emmy nominated dude. They aren't small shows by plucky independent producers. Ben Stiller literally directed Severance. Adam Scott is not a small actor.

Also, not all of those shows referenced there were Apple.

reply

[–] jk90us (5528) 7 months ago

He reviewed Snow White? No, he reviewed the teaser. That's just trolling.

Oh you can tell a lot about a project based on early information, especially when it’s from a studio with a history of screwing them up. So people start voicing their opinions immediately in the hopes the studio will come to its senses.

Sonic fans saw the horrific early image of what Sonic would look like in the first film and the studio quickly changed the character after fan backlash.

It’s like a chef telling you they’ll make a cake using white paint, dirt and dog crap. You’re going to stand up and voice your opinion instantly because you know it’ll taste like garbage.

reply

[–] howgamer (3669) 7 months ago

Haven't watched him in quite some time, but from what you list in your post it seems he reviews mostly popular/mainstream stuff? That makes the most sense to gather more views I guess.

What are the best shows on Apple TV? I don't have that service, but probably dropping Hulu and Disney+ soon so might pick it up if there are some good shows. Haven't heard anything about it.

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

>Haven't watched him in quite some time, but from what you list in your post it seems he reviews mostly popular/mainstream stuff? That makes the most sense to gather more views I guess.

Some of the shows I referenced are literally emmy-nominated or emmy award winners, and way beyond being obscure. Also Critical Drinker does seem to sometimes review low-effort "woke" garbage that really isn't popular (Robyn Hood).

>What are the best shows on Apple TV? I don't have that service, but probably dropping Hulu and Disney+ soon so might pick it up if there are some good shows. Haven't heard anything about it.

Severance is easily their most highest rated.

reply

[–] capuchin (2714) 7 months ago

I'm not familiar with this chap -- but there's a lot of what you describe out and about online. There are so many people who think they're showing off their 'serious film fan' credentials by whingeing about Disney or superheroes or franchises, and all they are really revealing to me is that they don't watch that many films.

I'm not massively fond of the Walt Disney Company and I think they own too much of the US entertainment market these days. I do think that's an issue. But Disney has little to no impact on my viewing habits, so I just leave that stuff to people who enjoy it and get on with watching the stuff that I like. There's so much of it out there. People sometimes act as though only one film -- usually costing in excess of $100m to make -- is released per month. Or that they're forced to watch this stuff.

reply

[–] DAVID62627 (395) 7 months ago

Is this any different than internet darlings RedLetterMedia? Who complain about the state of modern film yet seem to go out of their way to only review schlock?

reply

[–] Skavau (9881) 7 months ago

Not familiar with them. But yes, if so.

reply