No, YOU step back from the keyboard

This grown-up is 28 years old, if Wikipedia is correct. He drew some mockery on Bluesky yesterday, particularly in the Doctor Who department of same, for such sparkling wit as this:

I have enjoyed some superhero films but I recognise they are fundamentally limited. They are made for children. To enjoy them is not something to be proud of. Many watch such films with their children (or nieces, nephews, grandchildren, godchildren) and take pleasure in them as part of a family outing. I am speaking of those who don’t watch them with kids and treat them with the rapture and critical attention befitting a work of art. This is embarrassing.
And this is not exclusive to film. A political journalist in his forties, for instance, tweeted this on Christmas Day about the children’s TV show Doctor Who: “These four Doctor Who episodes have been an absolute delight. Witty, radical, funny, scary, thrilling… But most of all they’ve been kind.” Another started a column in the FT, no less, with the question: “Should I throw away my Doctor Who DVDs?” — and concluded by saying he would keep them.
If I still possessed a large collection of Doctor Who DVDs, no one would know about it. And “kindness” should not be used to make an aesthetic judgment; it should be the language of a teacher enforcing the conduct of a school playground, not of a person evaluating the quality of a TV show.

So a TV show demonstrating that decent human behaviour is good should not be praised for doing so? I don’t quite understand. The BS poster who I first saw talking about this nonsense offered this criticism:

I think a more pertinent point, though, is that he also doesn’t offer a definition of what he considers a “good film”. The only thing he mentions is Scorsese’s Goodfellas, which, parenthetically, was produced by Warner Bros and is consequently as much a product of the Hollywood entertainment system as those superhero movies Tomiwa and Scorsese don’t like. I know he doesn’t have room in a newspaper opinion column to offer a full theory of aesthetics, but he could at least give more of an idea of what counts as “good” for him. 70s New Hollywood? French New Wave? Italian Neorealism? Who else, apart from Scorsese? Hitchcock? Welles? Godard? Bergman? Ozu? Bresson? Fellini? Antonioni? Dreyer? Eisenstein? Herzog? Fassbinder? Wenders? Jarmusch? Lynch? Kubrick? Tarr? Brakhage? Does he even count that sort of experimental art film as film at all? I suspect not somehow.

Indeed, I suspect somehow like Tomiwa’s actual grasp of “good film” is probably a lot weaker and narrower than he’d like us to think, and I’d be curious to know if he’s actually seen anything by the people I’ve named above, and indeed if he’s even heard of some of them. I’m also curious to know what he’d consider “good books” in opposition to his blanket dismissal of all young adult fiction. What, basically, IS his actual taste? How conventional or otherwise is it? What’s the oldest film he’s ever seen? How far out is he willing to go? How obscure and obtuse does he get? How low is he willing to go? Why do I feel like he’s the sort of person who actually believes Plan 9 From Outer Space actually is the worst film ever made? Maybe I’m being uncharitable. Maybe not. I’m just tired of the culture war nonsense. For some reason this whole silliness reminds me of Werner Herzog’s quote about Jean-Luc Godard being “intellectual counterfeit money” compared to a kung-fu movie or even a porno…