To me this line indicates that he didn't actually understand the point of the show, because coming to the conclusion that Steven is a bad character because he's feckless and mild-mannered shows a fundamental misreading of the material. Steven represents Mark's desire for innocence. Not to hammer the point home, but I really don't understand how you could watch the show and not get that, it all but outright tells you.
because
a) it's capeshit
b) not everyone is always 100% right
before anyone accuses me of dicksucking, the drinker is already known for getting things wrong:
especially baffling in that case is he completely goes against his own argument from 30 seconds earlier because the whole fucking point WAS for spock to lose control to show he's unfit for command so kirk can take over and save the day (and finally become the captain "he's supposed to be"). even more so considering spock is a fucking
half-vulcan, which means an emotional outburst like that is a big fucking deal.
it was also kinda silly since that whole chain of command thing already got talked about at length years earlier in the wake of STD, and for the TNG example the usual go to was this:
imo he picks things for the sake of an argument. in the jjtrek example this isn't how authority works, but that overlooks the rest of the plot. does it make him wrong? debatable. especially when there are plenty of cases of how authority is based on whining or punching because that's what infantile writers envision as "conflict", but not necessarily that many to put star trek next to each other (and I assume he repressed the memory of STD like most sane people do, and the talking over example isn't even main STD which he might not have seen).
as for moon knight, if you're already checked out because it's capeshit it's easy to miss things (haven't watched it so can't say more about it). it's also important to keep in mind how much the rest still applies, one or two wrong takes don't invalidate everything else, no matter how that's usually the MO for internet arguments (and yes that also means complete retards can sometimes be right but still be retards the rest of the time, broken clock and all....).
what I give him credit for is not being a farthuffer and knowing when to have fun, which even with some wrong takes makes his perspective better for criticism than "I'm so much smarter and above all this". for example compare this:
"independence day is the kind of film you cannot fail to like"
to
EDIT:
this also reminded me of another video, which kinda (re)confirmed another suspicion of mine that the drinker sees things from a writer's perspective with it's own points that need to be there (like proper characterization, or setup and outcome). he talks a bit about it in the id4 review too. do those points really have to be there in that form? eh, dunno. maybe I'll just file it under creative differences, lot of people can't agree to disagree. from the moon knight review it was more in the way how over the top "loser" steven was written, especially when that wasn't in the source, not the "theme" etc.
