The difference between WW84 and the other movies you just mentioned is that those movies all range from serviceable to good. None of them were abominations like WW84, so it made sense, on a certain level, to praise them. I'm not saying feminists didn't praise CM simply because it was a female-led movie. I'm saying certain black people didn't praise BP simply because it was a black story. And I'm not saying certain men or certain white people didn't jump on those respective band wagons either, for no other reason than to virtue signal, bow to the blue checkmark brigade, etc. But women championing a decent girl-power movie, and black people championing a pretty good black movie, at least made sense, and was completely understandable.
With WW84, not so much.
That, and your argument makes zero sense because you directly contradict yourself within the same paragraph. You say there are protected groups we aren't allowed to blast (which, on a macro level, I'm not at all debating), but then you immediately dismiss the 35% of critics who are, in fact, currently blasting the movie. And you dismiss that 35% by "hazarding a guess" that we might "eventually" see "some" articles saying the movie isn't as bad we think? Huh??? Again, 35% of critics are CURRENTLY blasting this movie. And yet no one is labeling any of these people as sexists or bigots. I mean, what more blatantly factual evidence do you need to see that you couldn't be more wrong in this particular instance?
Again, I'm not saying there aren't critics who are guilty of what you're accusing them of. Of course there are. I'm simply saying, for THIS movie, in THIS particular instance, the initial batch of critics was guilty of being in the bag for this movie in a different sh*tty way. As usual, I'm arguing nuance, not some defend-Hollywood-at-all-cost position I'm so often accused of here. I'm AGREEING that those critics were doing something sh*tty. But, like most of these arguments, it's not ALWAYS the brand of sh*tty you guys so desperately want them to be.
Finally, don't act all high and mighty here. I wasn't talking to you, nor did I start this discussion. I was simply wondering aloud, and then you had to chime in - over a day later - and make damn sure I and everyone else knew that this was big, bad Hollywood doing its SJW thing. Like clockwork.
With WW84, not so much.
That, and your argument makes zero sense because you directly contradict yourself within the same paragraph. You say there are protected groups we aren't allowed to blast (which, on a macro level, I'm not at all debating), but then you immediately dismiss the 35% of critics who are, in fact, currently blasting the movie. And you dismiss that 35% by "hazarding a guess" that we might "eventually" see "some" articles saying the movie isn't as bad we think? Huh??? Again, 35% of critics are CURRENTLY blasting this movie. And yet no one is labeling any of these people as sexists or bigots. I mean, what more blatantly factual evidence do you need to see that you couldn't be more wrong in this particular instance?
Again, I'm not saying there aren't critics who are guilty of what you're accusing them of. Of course there are. I'm simply saying, for THIS movie, in THIS particular instance, the initial batch of critics was guilty of being in the bag for this movie in a different sh*tty way. As usual, I'm arguing nuance, not some defend-Hollywood-at-all-cost position I'm so often accused of here. I'm AGREEING that those critics were doing something sh*tty. But, like most of these arguments, it's not ALWAYS the brand of sh*tty you guys so desperately want them to be.
Finally, don't act all high and mighty here. I wasn't talking to you, nor did I start this discussion. I was simply wondering aloud, and then you had to chime in - over a day later - and make damn sure I and everyone else knew that this was big, bad Hollywood doing its SJW thing. Like clockwork.
