The Caffeinated Sloth
784 posts

The Caffeinated Sloth
@Why_Not_Scott
Veni. Vidi. Fugi.









Bruh








I 100% agree that they monetise their negative takes. I think it's a corrosive approach. I also think they've made positive reviews with relief because they want to appear (and feel) fully rounded critics. Zack has notoriously bad takes on movies (Mad Max, Terminator) and bet on some recent ones doing well and they got mauled and sank commercially. He took it personally. That was on him. I often say "I like X and you should too but I doubt it will do well." Zack's problem was that he bet his credibility on "Normies are so over woke, female action heroines are cool. These'll be smashes!". And they weren't and he took it personally. TLDR: the critics are 2D and are overly negative; Zack doesn't watch them anymore and acts on reflex. They all have intelligent things to say (sometimes). Fair summary?





@ReggieGrande @EthanVanSciver You'd think but not quite. If we came from the same ancestors as chimpanzees, then mankind was not created during the 6 days of creation. If the book of Genesis is incorrect, then believing in Jesus is moot.


Who’s pumped for this?!


















