How Chris-appointing...

We've already discussed how sometimes critics and viewers can be kind of far apart on something and how just because critics by and large dismissed Chris Pratt's The Terminal List as a Right-wing wank-fest and-what? 

Relax, it's just an expression. Although I do believe conservatives
get sexual pleasure from watching TV shows about shooting terrorists.

Is it that people used to throw tomatoes at
poor performances? I don't see how rottenness
 comes into play. Like, a tomato's a tomato.

I'm paraphrasing, but for real, they also called it "incoherent," a conspiracy theorist's wish fulfillment, and "nonsensical." And that's just a lazy glance at the Rotten Tomatoes entry. Like, I didn't even do research. I'm simply not paid enough. Anyway, it's got a 39%. And yes, some critics liked it. That's fine, but the overwhelming majority of them, not so much. But whatever. Like Jack Carr, the writer whose book the series is based on said: "We didn't make it for the critics. We made it for those in the arena." 

I never understood regular football, so...

And then we all had a good laugh at Carr's use of the word area. Like he made it for gladiators or people who played that weird, late nineties arena football thing. So why are we talking about it again? Because Chris Pratt, that's why. I like Chris Pratt. His work I mean. I think he's very funny and I mean, Guardians of the Galaxy, right? Everybody loves Chris. Except you kind of have to ignore the homophobic Hillsong Church, which he doesn't belong to, right? 

Because he attends a different church founded by a guy who broke away from Hillsong, but also made a documentary about the evils of homosexuality. But fine, whatever. Chris Pratt's beliefs, whatever they are aren't on trial here. In fact, nothing is on trial here. Except maybe Pratt's less than well thought out instant grams.

Above: Pratt's response to critics for, you know, criticizing.

Beard: check. Gun: check. 

The actor evidently--I say evidently because I'm not on Insta that much. Wait, do the kids still call it "Insta?"I'm hopelessly out of touch. Where was I? right--like I was saying, he apparently leapt to the defense of his dumb guys with beards and guns shooting stuff show, which is understandable. A lot of people worked very hard on it and he, as a famous with a large following, should support the work. Even though lots of people whose job it is to evaluate artistic works find it, you know, unwatchable. 

They had to tell the entire story on the title
page back then. You never knew when you
were going to die of consumption.

But it's the way he defended it, you know? He posted an article entitled:

"The new Yellowstone: Christ Pratt's new Navy thriller 'The Terminal List' defies woke critics scathing reviews to shoot up ratings chart with 1.6 Billion minutes of streams."

-TheDailyMail.com's preposterously

 long title for an article

Wait, except there already is a new
Yellowstone. It's called 1883 and also
has guys with guns shooting things.

So, couple of things. For one, that's too much title. It sounds like an eighteenth century novel: The New Yellowstone, or Chris Pratt's New Navy Thriller Being a True and Fulsome Account of the Defiance of Yon Wokest of Critics Who Doth Disparage The Same. Secondly, I don't know how they do things at the Daily Mail, but we typically don't count the minutes streamed. I think it's something like 330 million views, which, I have no idea if that's good, but it sounds less impressive than 1.6 billion minutes. 

And yeah again, critics can dislike a thing that everyone else likes. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Look, I know it's not Chris Pratt's job to share our worldview, but I'm not going to pretend it wouldn't bother me if he's a secret anti-gay, Right-wing, Trumpy MAGA goon. And throwing out articles about how the woke libruls are hating on his guns, god, and glory streaming show that real America adores isn't helping. 

Just throw us a Tweet saying Trans Rights, or I stand with Roe v Wade
and we can all go back to looking forward to Guardians 3, ok?