Hollywood never learns..

Comparing a chili sauce incident to Supergirl — setting the bar low 🌶️ — False Equivalence (20/100)

At 0:00

He's comparing a self-inflicted digestive disaster to a movie. One is a choice, the other is… still a choice, but for different reasons. 💀

Why this score: The speaker uses a vivid, self-deprecating anecdote about extreme physical discomfort to set up a comparison with watching Supergirl. This is a false equivalence because the two experiences are fundamentally different in nature and purpose. One is a physical challenge for a 'bit' or bet, the other is a passive entertainment experience. The comparison is designed to dramatically emphasize his dislike for the movie by equating it with a truly awful physical ordeal, rather than offering a balanced critique.

Original quote: “You know, I once drank a shot glass full of chili sauce for a bit on a night out. And the resulting explosive ejection of liquid fire from my body the next morning was enough to have me praying to the gods of chaos themselves. Anything to release me from the torment. But you know what? That was…”

Claiming Supergirl was 'abject misery and boredom' for two hours 😴 — Emotional Button (45/100)

At 0:18

Calling a movie 'abject misery and boredom' for two hours is a strong take. It's less a review and more a cry for help. 😭

Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged, negative language ('abject misery and boredom') to describe his experience watching Supergirl. This is an emotional button designed to evoke a strong, negative reaction from the audience, aligning them with his extreme dislike. While personal opinion is valid, the phrasing goes beyond simple dislike to paint the movie in the most dire terms possible, aiming for an emotional impact rather than a nuanced critical assessment. It's a subjective experience presented with absolute certainty.

Original quote: “watching Supergirl. Partly because I won the bet, so at least I made some money out of it. But mostly because at least it was over quickly. Supergirl, on the other hand, stretched out into almost two hours of abject misery and boredom.”

Sources: r/DC_Cinematic on Reddit: MEGATHREAD: 'SUPERGIRL' (2026) - SPOILER DISCUSSION (Wide Release), Supergirl is branded 'a dispiriting girl power disappointment' as critics label Milly Alcock's superhero movie 'ugly' and 'flat' and call the heroine a 'Gen-Z malcontent' in lacklustre reviews | Daily Mail Online, Supergirl | Review Thread | Jun 26 Entertainment | ResetEra

Declaring the movie 'everything we all feared' and a 'cringy, cliched, tedious mess'. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 0:30

Using 'everything we all feared' to amp up the drama — playing on collective dread for maximum impact 😬

Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged phrases like 'everything we all feared' and 'cringy, cliched, tedious mess' to convey a strong negative opinion. This language is designed to evoke a shared sense of disappointment and validate pre-existing biases against the movie, rather than offering objective criticism.

Original quote: “Is everything we all feared it would be and more. So much more. A cringy, cliched, tedious mess of dull, lifeless action scenes that we've seen a million times before.”

Speaker claims the movie is as bad as feared, plus more, using emotional language. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 0:30

'Feared it would be and more' — that's not a review, that's a horror movie tagline 💀

Why this score: The speaker uses emotionally charged language like 'feared' to amplify the negative impact of the movie, framing it as a collective dread realized and exceeded. This taps into potential audience anxieties about bad superhero films.

Original quote: “Is everything we all feared it would be and more.”

Summarizing the plot points with a heavy dose of eye-rolling. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 2:30

The 'you guessed it' and 'it'll be fine' setup for the inevitable disaster. Narrating the plot like it's a bad fanfic 💀

Why this score: The speaker uses phrases like 'you guessed it' and sets up Cara's dismissive attitude ('Nah, it'll be fine') to highlight the predictable and seemingly contrived nature of the plot. This framing implies a lack of originality or depth in the storytelling.

Original quote: “pick up with Cara celebrating her 23rd birthday by, you guessed it, getting drunk and partying. That's when she meets up with Ruthie, who's out to kill some [ __ ] named Creme in revenge for murdering her family. But Cara's like, "Nah, it'll be fine." But it turns out it won't be fine when Creme…”

Sarcastic praise for a character, setting up a critique — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 2:30

That 'inspirational' is doing some heavy lifting, carrying the weight of pure sarcasm. The setup for the roast is *chef's kiss*. 🤌

Why this score: The speaker uses 'inspirational' and 'can't wait' with clear sarcasm, indicating the opposite of their literal meaning. This loaded language is used to set up a critical review of the character and plot, rather than genuinely praising them.

Original quote: “Wow. What an inspirational character. Can't wait to see more of this.”

Summarizing plot points with a heavy dose of eye-rolling and disbelief. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 2:30

The 'you guessed it' and 'nah, it'll be fine' are just dripping with contempt for the writing. Narrating with a sneer 🙄

Why this score: The speaker uses phrases like 'you guessed it' and 'Cara's like, "Nah, it'll be fine"' to inject their own negative commentary and disdain for the plot's predictability and character choices, rather than simply recounting the events. It's a narrative summary framed to highlight perceived flaws.

Original quote: “pick up with Cara celebrating her 23rd birthday by, you guessed it, getting drunk and partying. That's when she meets up with Ruthie, who's out to kill some [ __ ] named Creme in revenge for murdering her family. But Cara's like, "Nah, it'll be fine." But it turns out it won't be fine when Creme…”

Critiques 'millennial Hollywood writers' for cringe meta humor and bad dialogue. — Loaded Language (45/100)

At 4:30

Blaming 'millennial Hollywood writers' for bad writing is a classic generational scapegoat — like they're a monolith 🙄

Why this score: The speaker attributes specific writing flaws (cringe meta humor, trite one-liners) directly to 'millennial Hollywood writers' as a group. This uses a broad, somewhat derogatory label to dismiss a generation of writers, rather than critiquing the specific writing choices or studio directives. It's a generalization that uses 'millennial' as a loaded term, implying a shared, negative characteristic without specific evidence linking the writers' age to the quality of the script.

Original quote: “I'd be lying if I said I went into this movie expecting great things from it, but I've got to admit, I was surprised. And the thing that surprised me most was how [ __ ] [ __ ] the writing was. I mean, the dialogue is exactly what you'd expect from something like this. The usual mix of trit…”

Attributing a cynical motive to filmmakers for including Jason Momoa. — Straw Man (20/100)

At 6:30

He's putting words in the filmmakers' mouths, creating a cartoon villain motive for fan service. Pure conjecture 🤡

Why this score: The speaker invents a scenario where filmmakers cynically add 'dumb things' for 'guys' to watch the movie. This creates a straw man argument by attributing an unverified, negative motive to the creators, making it easier to criticize the film's perceived flaws.

Original quote: “So, they just had him go in there and just do a few dumb things and they're like, "Oh, guys will like this. Maybe maybe it'll get guys to actually watch this movie then."”

Claiming Jason Momoa's scenes were post-production additions, pure speculation 🤡 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)

At 6:30

Went from 'you could cut him out' to 'pretty convinced' about post-production. That's a leap of faith, not evidence. 🤸‍♂️

Why this score: The speaker expresses a strong conviction about the production process ('pretty convinced') without offering any actual evidence or insider information, presenting personal opinion as a near-fact. It's a confident assertion based purely on subjective feeling about the character's impact.

Original quote: “Honestly though, you could cut him right out of this movie and everything would play out exactly the same. In fact, I'm pretty convinced that the bulk of his scenes were added in post-prouction.”

Characterization based on 'not particularly popular' comic run, ignoring history. — Cherry-Picked (20/100)

At 8:30

Basing a character on a 'not particularly popular' run while ignoring 'half a century' of development? That's some selective storytelling 🎭.

Why this score: The speaker is highlighting a creative choice that seems to cherry-pick a less popular source material and discard established character history, which can be seen as a deliberate choice to reshape a character in a specific, potentially controversial, way. It's a critique of the adaptation strategy.

Original quote: “herself, who's apparently based on the not particularly popular Tom King run of comic books, which helpfully ignore half a century of character development to paint Cara as a cringy punk rock anti-hero.”

Sources: Anachronism Stew - TV Tropes, Characterization Marches On / Comic Books, Comic-Book Time - TV Tropes

Young female characters can't have 'jaded' arcs like 50-year-old male characters. — False Equivalence (20/100)

At 10:30

Comparing a young female character's potential arc to Jason Statham and John Wick — as if those are the only two options for 'jaded' 🤡

Why this score: The speaker creates a false equivalence by suggesting that the 'jaded pragmatist' archetype is exclusively reserved for older male characters like Jason Statham or John Wick. This ignores the possibility of different narrative approaches or experiences that could lead a younger female character to a similar state, implying a narrow view of character development.

Original quote: “Yeah, you can't do that for a young female character because obviously they're not going to have the same experience as somebody like the reason why that works for a Jason Staithm movie is because Jason Staithm is like 50 years old. So like it makes sense that you know or like John Wick you know…”

Sources: Writing “Women of a Certain Age.” A Roundtable on Crafting Older Female Characters in Fiction, Men Get Old, Women Get Replaced - TV Tropes, r/GirlGamers on Reddit: Seeking suggestions for the jaded

Comparing young female character to 50-year-old male action heroes, creating a false equivalence. — False Equivalence (20/100)

At 10:30

Comparing a 23-year-old to Jason Statham or John Wick is like comparing a TikTok dance to a ballet. Different leagues, different life experiences 🤡

Why this score: The speaker draws a direct comparison between a young female character and established male action stars like Jason Statham and John Wick, both noted to be around 50 years old. This creates a false equivalence, as the life experiences and narrative arcs suitable for a seasoned, older character are not directly transferable or appropriate for a much younger one, especially when the argument is about 'jaded' pragmatism.

Original quote: “Yeah, you can't do that for a young female character because obviously they're not going to have the same experience as somebody like the reason why that works for a Jason Staithm movie is because Jason Staithm is like 50 years old. So like it makes sense that you know or like John Wick you know…”

Claiming female superhero characters like Supergirl are just 'what if the male character was a girl?' and 'nobody gives a shit.' — Straw Man (20/100)

At 12:30

Reducing complex characters to 'what if the male character was a girl?' That's a gross oversimplification to make a point. 🤦‍♀️

Why this score: The speaker creates a straw man argument by oversimplifying the development of female superhero characters. While some characters may have originated as gender-swapped versions, many have evolved with their own distinct backstories, personalities, and fanbases. Dismissing them all as merely 'what if the male character was a girl?' ignores decades of character development and fan engagement, making it easier to then claim 'nobody gives a shit' about them.

Original quote: “like they're not even really their own character. They're basically just like what if the male character was a girl? And I don't think anybody gives a [ __ ]”

Speaker references White House Twitter and a 'Destiny' post, but provides no specifics. Just vibes and a vague accusation. 🤡 — Anonymous Authority (45/100)

At 14:30

Mentions 'White House Twitter' and a 'Destiny' post without any actual details. That's a lot of smoke for no fire. 🔥

Why this score: The speaker points to 'White House Twitter' and a post about 'Destiny' as if it's common knowledge or obvious evidence, but doesn't actually show the post or explain its relevance. It's an appeal to an unnamed, unverified source to support an unstated point.

Original quote: “Check White House Twitter. You want me to look at again? You want me to see the [ __ ] uh where was it? uh you know them making some post about I don't even know what this is um some post about you know Destiny I already saw that before”