In fairness, there definitely
is a difference (on paper) between saying ‘boooo it’s woke boooo’ and ‘this film has failed because it panders to women’.
… but it’s also very fair to say that the distinction starts to erode when the latter is peppered by
statements of glee that it has failed because of pandering.
^^^When that happens, the esteemed professors on the subject may try and maintain there is an academic distinction, but for the laypersons reading (like me) it does comes across as the same subject tbh. So I’m not surprised by
@Moothead2’s comments, even if it is just a post or two that pushes the tone of the criticism in that direction.
The film is clearly a howler, no doubts there. But in addition to what I’ve said above, the ongoing ‘strong BAFEM-look’ of the sub-forum isn’t being helped in this thread by:
(i) slightly over-zealous denials of ‘anti-wokism’ (which ignore the aforementioned taking glee in ‘pander-flops’);
(ii) inferences that the film should be more targeted at men (and would be better if it was);
(iii) the other posts in the thread which have whiffs of ‘wheeey get dem **** out for the lads’ 
Oh - ‘BAFEM’ is a new acronym I’ve coined to capture the zeitgeist:
‘brittle as **** entitled male’.
… I’m being playful of course, knowing that we are all mad-lads here and that everyone can take my bantz on the chin
www.cbr.com
