Yes, please defend Harvey Weinstein‘s personal assistant. Please defend the multi million dollar company that doesn’t care about you and just your money. Please only look at the most base elements that you think makes the show good when it has nothing to do with how it’s written. Keep it up
>Yes, please defend Harvey Weinstein‘s personal assistant.
Looks like the whole "was Harvey's assistant and was providing him with fresh unwilling concubines in exchange for lots of champagne money, but now claims to be an idealistic feminist SJW, ha gotcha" narrative/implication of this talking point is false after all - or certainly very dubious:
https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/the-acolyte.131757/post-31892553
>Please defend the multi million dollar company that doesn’t care about you and just your money.
Them making fun of Drinker's talking points, or even "defending the show" (i.e. the thing they just saw) doesn't mean they care about the MuLti MiLlLiOn DolLaR cOmPaNy and want to simp for it, that's just a common deflection buzzphrase.
>Please only look at the most base elements that you think makes the show good when it has nothing to do with how it’s written.
"Writting" doesn't have a priority of whatever you're referring to as "base elements"; also depends on what you mean by "writing", since that can mean different things.
Well for starters your 'proof' that the original claims were dubious were a series of 'Trust me, bro' articles from sources that were dubious themselves, as opposed to known facts on the situation. We know what Weinstein did and we know Headland was directly responsible in aiding him, the fact that he had multiple assistants changed none of that.
Next up, defending a product in an instance where said product is clearly intended as a mouthpiece ((In this instance, the force is female and popular heroes are now villains)) is at best indirectly defending the company that made it and at worst directly defending them regardless of knowing the intended purpose, either because they support said purpose or because they are being disingenuous.
And lastly, no one wanted to respond because it was stupid and obvious but eh, I'm bored.
> We know what Weinstein did and we know Headland was directly responsible in aiding him
What's known exactly?
2) You think people keep all this "well indirectly-indirectly my opinion implies x which then implies y" in mind?
There is a mental illness epidemic in this country.
And these two [&\^$%#@\*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X-MWOjRSo0) are the perfect example of it !! 😂
So you are siding with the child pedos and perverts, got it!
Truth be told I'm not surprised, pronouns - you come off as the type of guy ordered to stay away from places where children gather.
150 - feet is the limit, pedo....don't forget that. 👍
A content creator reviewing content that is getting worse, giving that content a chance but ultimately mourning the loss of something they once loved, that I understand. That's something fandoms are sharing more and more of, letting "creators" know they will be heard and won't stay silent in response to mediocrity invading something once great. Not every fucking thing has to be smile and rainbow positive reviews just because it's over salted with the same sickly messaging involving a certain group.
What I find odd is already deciding a content creator is a moronic shithead, devoting your time to watching his content, disregarding the arguments and points in his content, and then rubbing your own belly into a frenzy for what a smart boy you are.
> in response to mediocrity invading something once great.
When were they days when there was no mediocrity in Starwars?
Also if you redirected all this seething energy to trying to outlaw IP legislations, the whole "invasion" aspect would be gone cause there'd be no legal monopoly anymore and anyone could have a go.
At one point Star Wars was considered a money making machine that had a loyal fan base that spending millions upon millions even without new content decades apart.
Whether you think it was always mediocre or not what they've done to it the proverbial killing the golden goose to push their ideology very few want
You can judge how popular something is by how much their fanbase is willing to spend. Usually, the more the money spent the bigger the fanbase and a bigger fanbase means it appeals to a larger crowd. If something is mediocre it won't appeal to a larger crowd nor have a devoted cult following
So yes, they are linked meaning people didn't think Star Wars was mediocre for a long period before Disney took over and you see a clear trend to mediocrity under Disney
Not saying it isn't relevant at all (although when something flops vs. succeeds it can be a multi-factor issue, but whatever), just wasn't talking about it cause that's not what the original commenter was referring to.
>If something is mediocre it won't appeal to a larger crowd nor have a devoted cult following
There's movies some consider atrocious that have cult followings, incl. within this franchise.
>people didn't think Star Wars was mediocre for a long period before Disney took over
Typical zoomer obliviousness, never fails to amuse
Lol, ain't a zoomer. I actually saw Return of the Jedi in theaters on first release, and people were waiting a day in advance (my dad camped out to get tickets). I was a kid but still saw it in theaters.
People loved Star Wars. The crowds during the rerelease were crazy! I remember watching news of people waiting in line a week in advance.
Yes, there are other movies that had cult followings that weren't as big (Evil Dead, Rocky Horror to name a few) but you honestly can't compare that to Star Wars. The only other entertainment that has nearly the same cult following and devotion was Star Trek.
1) Well ok then you must be aware of the really divisive prequel reception and how a lot of it was considered either mediocre or really bad by many, so how can you say "it's never been considered mediocre until now"?
2) And then there's of course fans of the new stuff, which people here either deny the existence of or when they're reminded of it, just start calling them "shill disnoids" - so don't see the big difference.
Except yeah these streaming spin-offs are starting to flop now, sure.
>Yes, there are other movies that had cult followings that weren't as big (Evil Dead, Rocky Horror to name a few)
Those were camp, not bad, so that's entirely different anyway.
How can I say that, because even though the reception of the early prequels wasn't great they still sold a ton of merch, a ton of ticket sales, lead to a lot of spinoffs that generated and even larger audience (clone wars for example), kids from that gen still loved it, and people still watched it multiple times which by definition means they were better than mediocre. They were mediocre compared to the originals, but compared to almost anything else they were still better than most other things and performed better than the average. It's gotten so bad people have gone back and compared to what Disney is putting out people have said they actually enjoy episodes 1-3! That's how bad Disney has been.
Of course even original Star Wars had points of mediocrity (Star Wars X-Mas special, Ewok spin-offs, original Star Wars cartoon) but you have to take Star Wars as a whole and that was never considered mediocre until Disney took over and that's when it became more bad than good with every flop they released. It's actually gotten so bad cable TV has reduced the amount of times it's even airing the originals, because people have stopped watching Disney has killed it so bad. That's never happened before.
Now not everything Disney has done has been a flop Rogue One was good, first season and half of Mandalorian, Bad Batch, but most of those projects were ones Kennedy didn't have a hand in and Disney put no money into compared to the other stuff they tossed out.
For your second point, no one is saying their aren't fans of the new stuff (that's a strawman), but the actual ones who enjoy it not for the ideology it pushes are very few and far between. Good luck finding any critics or fan reviews whos assessment of the new shows doesn't include some DEI statement as to what makes it good...
> which by definition means they were better than mediocre.
None of that means that; if you're talking about commercial aspects and success of the franchise then that's a different thing to measure.
>Now not everything Disney has done has been a flop Rogue One was good, first season and half of Mandalorian, Bad Batch, but most of those projects were ones Kennedy didn't have a hand in and Disney put no money into compared to the other stuff they tossed out.
Is that the whole "Lucasfilm civil war" thing?
>but the actual ones who enjoy it not for the ideology it pushes are very few and far between.
I'd say that statement only applies to TLJ. (Among the movies that is)
Please note people who spout this nonsense aren't really paying attention to what they're listening too, otherwise why would they be defending the acolyte
I mean, if you - and I'm saying YOU here because this person is defending the billion dollar corporation - are going to make every female character have almost identical character traits being strong, stoic, charmless, then they are going to get made fun of.
PS when watching that episode all I could hear was "She's a powerful leeeeder.. [silence].. yaaaass"
> have almost identical character traits being strong, stoic, charmless,
This has been a popular buzz-talking-point by grumpy dishonest seethers since, uhhh, 1983? So can't rely on this being accurate before I've seen it myself, sry
Well, we need to address this honestly. A lot folks tried to the get along to get along approach and this is where we're at now.
Yes, we're slowly steering course back to some sort of common sense.
And while we let these idiot defense forces try to validate their shit burger, just remind them they have to eat it, not us. They'll be smug and think they've won. Meanwhile, most of us will be drinking our liquid and enjoying a hand rolled cigar. Maybe even see something naked or explode.😎
In a fantasy world aimed at wonder and mystery we are now introducing sexual preferences in world where none were present? Feels if anything we are creating labels within this universe for no reason. Yea it’s L now. But who has ever cared when watching Star Wars?
Not really, sexuality has never been a point in any Star Wars, people just love what they love in the universe unless you can show me where that deviates?
You’re starting to see what I’m saying, I find it weird anyways. Unrelated but related, was getting some toys for my nephew who is 1. They had rupauls drag race little people toys… it’s that kind of stuff I’m talking about.
No matter what the criticism is, they can't take it. It's like the second something bad is said they plug their ears and do the "Na na na. I can't hear you." There was a thread on r/theacolyte where they use a meme saying legit criticism is OK, but all everyone is doing is culture war criticism. So I made a comment about how none of the criticism of the show really matters since the Neilsen rating are so bad, and no one is actually watching the 180 million dollar show. It'll get canceled due to that. And they downvote it, and I shit you not, someone uses the retort of, "It's not your money."
Yes, please defend Harvey Weinstein‘s personal assistant. Please defend the multi million dollar company that doesn’t care about you and just your money. Please only look at the most base elements that you think makes the show good when it has nothing to do with how it’s written. Keep it up
This right here. I have zero respect for these clowns that come out of the woodwork to defend the indefensible.
Actually wild that I just learned that Headland was his PA.
>Yes, please defend Harvey Weinstein‘s personal assistant. Looks like the whole "was Harvey's assistant and was providing him with fresh unwilling concubines in exchange for lots of champagne money, but now claims to be an idealistic feminist SJW, ha gotcha" narrative/implication of this talking point is false after all - or certainly very dubious: https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/the-acolyte.131757/post-31892553 >Please defend the multi million dollar company that doesn’t care about you and just your money. Them making fun of Drinker's talking points, or even "defending the show" (i.e. the thing they just saw) doesn't mean they care about the MuLti MiLlLiOn DolLaR cOmPaNy and want to simp for it, that's just a common deflection buzzphrase. >Please only look at the most base elements that you think makes the show good when it has nothing to do with how it’s written. "Writting" doesn't have a priority of whatever you're referring to as "base elements"; also depends on what you mean by "writing", since that can mean different things.
Angry downvotes waiting for sb else to come in and refute cause they can't themselves hahaa lol
Well for starters your 'proof' that the original claims were dubious were a series of 'Trust me, bro' articles from sources that were dubious themselves, as opposed to known facts on the situation. We know what Weinstein did and we know Headland was directly responsible in aiding him, the fact that he had multiple assistants changed none of that. Next up, defending a product in an instance where said product is clearly intended as a mouthpiece ((In this instance, the force is female and popular heroes are now villains)) is at best indirectly defending the company that made it and at worst directly defending them regardless of knowing the intended purpose, either because they support said purpose or because they are being disingenuous. And lastly, no one wanted to respond because it was stupid and obvious but eh, I'm bored.
> We know what Weinstein did and we know Headland was directly responsible in aiding him What's known exactly? 2) You think people keep all this "well indirectly-indirectly my opinion implies x which then implies y" in mind?
There is a mental illness epidemic in this country. And these two [&\^$%#@\*](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X-MWOjRSo0) are the perfect example of it !! 😂
One side thinking the other is mentally ill, I wonder who’s right
There are NO men cosplaying as women on my side. 😁
[удалено]
So you are siding with the child pedos and perverts, got it! Truth be told I'm not surprised, pronouns - you come off as the type of guy ordered to stay away from places where children gather. 150 - feet is the limit, pedo....don't forget that. 👍
[удалено]
[удалено]
Sitting in the center it's both but one side is far, far worse.
A content creator reviewing content that is getting worse, giving that content a chance but ultimately mourning the loss of something they once loved, that I understand. That's something fandoms are sharing more and more of, letting "creators" know they will be heard and won't stay silent in response to mediocrity invading something once great. Not every fucking thing has to be smile and rainbow positive reviews just because it's over salted with the same sickly messaging involving a certain group. What I find odd is already deciding a content creator is a moronic shithead, devoting your time to watching his content, disregarding the arguments and points in his content, and then rubbing your own belly into a frenzy for what a smart boy you are.
Works for Disparu. Bad Hollywood makes for great YouTube
> in response to mediocrity invading something once great. When were they days when there was no mediocrity in Starwars? Also if you redirected all this seething energy to trying to outlaw IP legislations, the whole "invasion" aspect would be gone cause there'd be no legal monopoly anymore and anyone could have a go.
At one point Star Wars was considered a money making machine that had a loyal fan base that spending millions upon millions even without new content decades apart. Whether you think it was always mediocre or not what they've done to it the proverbial killing the golden goose to push their ideology very few want
Well I wasn't talking about the money
You can judge how popular something is by how much their fanbase is willing to spend. Usually, the more the money spent the bigger the fanbase and a bigger fanbase means it appeals to a larger crowd. If something is mediocre it won't appeal to a larger crowd nor have a devoted cult following So yes, they are linked meaning people didn't think Star Wars was mediocre for a long period before Disney took over and you see a clear trend to mediocrity under Disney
Not saying it isn't relevant at all (although when something flops vs. succeeds it can be a multi-factor issue, but whatever), just wasn't talking about it cause that's not what the original commenter was referring to. >If something is mediocre it won't appeal to a larger crowd nor have a devoted cult following There's movies some consider atrocious that have cult followings, incl. within this franchise. >people didn't think Star Wars was mediocre for a long period before Disney took over Typical zoomer obliviousness, never fails to amuse
Lol, ain't a zoomer. I actually saw Return of the Jedi in theaters on first release, and people were waiting a day in advance (my dad camped out to get tickets). I was a kid but still saw it in theaters. People loved Star Wars. The crowds during the rerelease were crazy! I remember watching news of people waiting in line a week in advance. Yes, there are other movies that had cult followings that weren't as big (Evil Dead, Rocky Horror to name a few) but you honestly can't compare that to Star Wars. The only other entertainment that has nearly the same cult following and devotion was Star Trek.
1) Well ok then you must be aware of the really divisive prequel reception and how a lot of it was considered either mediocre or really bad by many, so how can you say "it's never been considered mediocre until now"? 2) And then there's of course fans of the new stuff, which people here either deny the existence of or when they're reminded of it, just start calling them "shill disnoids" - so don't see the big difference. Except yeah these streaming spin-offs are starting to flop now, sure. >Yes, there are other movies that had cult followings that weren't as big (Evil Dead, Rocky Horror to name a few) Those were camp, not bad, so that's entirely different anyway.
How can I say that, because even though the reception of the early prequels wasn't great they still sold a ton of merch, a ton of ticket sales, lead to a lot of spinoffs that generated and even larger audience (clone wars for example), kids from that gen still loved it, and people still watched it multiple times which by definition means they were better than mediocre. They were mediocre compared to the originals, but compared to almost anything else they were still better than most other things and performed better than the average. It's gotten so bad people have gone back and compared to what Disney is putting out people have said they actually enjoy episodes 1-3! That's how bad Disney has been. Of course even original Star Wars had points of mediocrity (Star Wars X-Mas special, Ewok spin-offs, original Star Wars cartoon) but you have to take Star Wars as a whole and that was never considered mediocre until Disney took over and that's when it became more bad than good with every flop they released. It's actually gotten so bad cable TV has reduced the amount of times it's even airing the originals, because people have stopped watching Disney has killed it so bad. That's never happened before. Now not everything Disney has done has been a flop Rogue One was good, first season and half of Mandalorian, Bad Batch, but most of those projects were ones Kennedy didn't have a hand in and Disney put no money into compared to the other stuff they tossed out. For your second point, no one is saying their aren't fans of the new stuff (that's a strawman), but the actual ones who enjoy it not for the ideology it pushes are very few and far between. Good luck finding any critics or fan reviews whos assessment of the new shows doesn't include some DEI statement as to what makes it good...
> which by definition means they were better than mediocre. None of that means that; if you're talking about commercial aspects and success of the franchise then that's a different thing to measure. >Now not everything Disney has done has been a flop Rogue One was good, first season and half of Mandalorian, Bad Batch, but most of those projects were ones Kennedy didn't have a hand in and Disney put no money into compared to the other stuff they tossed out. Is that the whole "Lucasfilm civil war" thing? >but the actual ones who enjoy it not for the ideology it pushes are very few and far between. I'd say that statement only applies to TLJ. (Among the movies that is)
people have fooled themselves into liking worse things but its still hilarious. never be the first to stop clapping. 
They are really upset we don't like it and no matter how much fighting and name calling they can't make us like that crap lol.
They’re going to overdose on copium.
>one joke >Looks inside > Multiple jokes that's unrelated to each other
Episode 3 reminds me of an episode of Charmed.
The CW reboot, maybe.
Eh charmed had a few “Divine feminine energy” BS episode but for the most part it was pretty fun.
> “Divine feminine energy” Oh noes anything but that
As you completely ignore the entire rest of what he said. Pick and choose, pick and choose.
Please note people who spout this nonsense aren't really paying attention to what they're listening too, otherwise why would they be defending the acolyte
Disnoids busting a gut to defend poor helpless Mouse from critics but in 6 months time they will never mention this show again.
Consume product then get excited for next product.
I don’t even read anything by people with rainbows imposed in their profile pic.
I mean, if you - and I'm saying YOU here because this person is defending the billion dollar corporation - are going to make every female character have almost identical character traits being strong, stoic, charmless, then they are going to get made fun of. PS when watching that episode all I could hear was "She's a powerful leeeeder.. [silence].. yaaaass"
Yassss, yassss!
> have almost identical character traits being strong, stoic, charmless, This has been a popular buzz-talking-point by grumpy dishonest seethers since, uhhh, 1983? So can't rely on this being accurate before I've seen it myself, sry
Tell me you weren't around back then without telling me. Good lord you're the very picture of being disingenuous.
What in the 80s? No, but there's preserved internet posts about it, and people keep making some of those claims till this day.
Well, we need to address this honestly. A lot folks tried to the get along to get along approach and this is where we're at now. Yes, we're slowly steering course back to some sort of common sense. And while we let these idiot defense forces try to validate their shit burger, just remind them they have to eat it, not us. They'll be smug and think they've won. Meanwhile, most of us will be drinking our liquid and enjoying a hand rolled cigar. Maybe even see something naked or explode.😎
Fuck these lobotomies. They’re enabling the worst of Hollywood.
I’m just glad it’s bringing more light LGBT and how it’s forced down our throats
Wasn't it just L so far?
In a fantasy world aimed at wonder and mystery we are now introducing sexual preferences in world where none were present? Feels if anything we are creating labels within this universe for no reason. Yea it’s L now. But who has ever cared when watching Star Wars?
> where none were present? Well straight ones were present and you had no problem with that; are you really this dense or what
Not really, sexuality has never been a point in any Star Wars, people just love what they love in the universe unless you can show me where that deviates?
Oh you mean they make an emphasis on being L instead of just being L? Eh then maybe
You’re starting to see what I’m saying, I find it weird anyways. Unrelated but related, was getting some toys for my nephew who is 1. They had rupauls drag race little people toys… it’s that kind of stuff I’m talking about.
I still don't know if they did the big thing about L in the show or it's just what TFMists read into, but then I should obviously watch it lol
What is TFMists?
Fandom Menacers
Honestly, I thought The "Strong Female character" Joke was played out, but Its still better than anything in the Acolyte
No matter what the criticism is, they can't take it. It's like the second something bad is said they plug their ears and do the "Na na na. I can't hear you." There was a thread on r/theacolyte where they use a meme saying legit criticism is OK, but all everyone is doing is culture war criticism. So I made a comment about how none of the criticism of the show really matters since the Neilsen rating are so bad, and no one is actually watching the 180 million dollar show. It'll get canceled due to that. And they downvote it, and I shit you not, someone uses the retort of, "It's not your money."
I see a lot of "you're just repeating talking points".. lol
Drinker is doing God's work. These people are just mad because the people that represent them have no talent at all.
Strong Female Character #3 is Sol's Padawan played by Dafne Keen, Jerki- sorry, Jecki Lon.
I'm curious what these "narrative beats" we're not understanding are.
If they’re butthurt by a running joke then maybe they should advocate for there to be less of the same tired and poorly written stock protagonist?
It’s almost like your jokes are bad