They're a joke, and they're cringe social justice types that just stand there complaining about how people are calling them gay and beta for liking gay and beta material.
People are allowed to change the title of something if it doesn't reflect the content or the intent of it, whats the problem there?
Drinker's audience numbers in his genre reflect his ability to be in touch with their common interests. So when he makes a suggestion to see something, its more likely that hes saying its good because its good, not because of any exterior or ulterior motivation. If anything the major thing that pisses of Critical Drinker is he says he wants content that pleases the audience and not "The Message" which is actually a pretty common point of view, and isn't even political really. Its a rejection of the idea that one point of view should be the default in all media, when art should be made by a person or a team with a specific point of view they want to put out there for general audiences.
I'm not his audience, but if someone out there with influence is praising movies I already know are good, then I think thats a net win for good things.
Because, if we actually do have a similar taste in movies, or like similar stories, maybe the suggestions this person is making for me are good suggestions.
How is that an L for the channel or me as a viewer?
Nothing critical drinker does should be controversial in my opinion, hes almost boomer-like in his point of view.
Wheres the unreasonable opinion in any of these suggested movies? A Spider-man movie?
If your point is he is too milquetoast, and everyone already knows these movies, then it just confirms my point about how he is in touch with his general audience, which has general interests in generally good movies.
How is this a problem?
Make some kind of argument as to why they're incorrect in anything they've said. Stop saying they're in non-conformity with your beliefs or views like you're incapable of thinking beyond your simple dislike of what they stand for and actually address what they say here. I realize they're a bunch of progressive faggots, but they're still correct in this instance.
Drinker changed the title of the video to reflect the audience score because he discovered the film wasn't as bad as he had predicted. This is how YouTube works. You talk of "audience numbers" reflecting some bullshit but you haven't even done any of your own research on because you're relying completely on wishful thinking and echo-chambered ideals.
In no way do these numbers reflect someone who is "in touch." What these numbers reflect is someone who knows how to work YouTube algorithmic systems and make effective clickbait for simps like you to click on because you can't help yourself.
The guy's channel has 1,590,000 subscribers. His All Quiet On The Western Front video which was posted more than a month ago has accumulated only accumulated about 885,000 views, aobut 7,000 comments, and 65,000 likes. The total number of views makes up about 50% of his total subs. This as opposed to his Velma video which was posted last week and has accumulated 3,673,520 views, 33,666 comments, and 205,000 likes. The total number of views makes up about 230% of his subs.
It's pretty clear what the majority of his audience want from his channel, and it's not critical analysis or love of classics.
Whatever his stated philosophies are don't mean jack because he clearly isn't trying to change the industry. In fact, he is indirectly supporting it by turning his channel into some hyper-awareness factory for whatever trash is churned out by the people he claims he thinks are ruining the industry. He's a parasite. Hell, he can't even prove the systems he believes are in place are actually real given he hasn't actually worked in the industry. But that doesn't matter because YouTube doesn't vet people who talk out their ass about whatever they please--people can lie all day and give whatever philosophical underpinnings will cater to what makes their followers warm and fuzzy inside.
Where's the unreasonable opinion? In what the video you just posted? The one on
They Boys?
Okay...
Not all the superheroes are illustrated as complete assholes. That's 1.
Black Noir DOES speak. That's 2. (Drinker obviously didn't read the comics, else he would know this.)
You can easily figure out where Karl Urban is from by looking it up online. That's 3.
Excessive violence is not equal to dark humor. That's 4.
Here's 5:
Drinker watched the show without knowledge of the source material which is a huge discrepancy because he is going to judge the show for how it was re-tailored by amazon and not through the eyes of the original authors. He clearly doesn't know how "wokified" the show became during its transition:
Hughie, who is powered in the comic, is a weak beta male in the show.
Queen Maeve is turned into a token lesbian. In the comics, she had a child named The Legend, which obviously means she had sex with a man.
In the show, the only powered member just so-happens to be a woman. That's The Female (of the species). In the comics, Hughie, Butcher and Mother’s Milk are also powered.
In the show, there are multiple scenes of full male nudity. Coincidentally, there is minimal female nudity.
The Frenchman has his balls squeezed by a female in public. Nobody says or does anything in response.
Butcher is physically assaulted by Mother’s Milk’s wife due to her being angry at him. Nobody has a problem with this.
The Deep is sexually assaulted by a female. While Episode 01 includes rape warnings, there are no rape warnings for this episode.
A Christian group is shown as anti-gay while being led by a closeted homosexual.
Mallory who was a man in the comic is played by a woman--Laila Robins.
Stillwell is also a man in the comic, replaced by a woman--Elizabeth Shue.
The Frenchman is race-swapped and played by an Isreali actor named Tomer Kapon.
But here's the kicker. This is 6:
Drinker is one of these guys who won't even be remotely cognizant of the fact that all the social commentary made by
The Boys is tailored specifically to fall in line with the mainstream perceptions about celebrities, politicians, and oligarchs alike. Because woke Lefties, while exceedingly blind to their own vanities, will still see
The Boys illustrations as being indicative not of the mainstream Left, but of
the Right. Supes as a proxy for police violence, the government being behind the crack epidemic, all men being pigs, etc.
Hell, Homelander was turned into an absolute a parody of right wing Republicans for the past two seasons. The show is egregiously left-leaning. So, if Drinker really wonders how
The Boys can be made in this day and age, he clearly doesn't understand wokeness.
It's the same here as it was with GoWR.
