68
Zachary Levi Says ‘Shazam! Fury of the Gods’ Critics Rating Was “Oddly and Perplexingly Low”
(www.hollywoodreporter.com)
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
68 points (82.7% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
45 readers
2 users here now
General discussion about movies and TV shows.
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain
[spoilers]in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:
::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::
Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!
Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [!thebear@lemmy.film](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)
Related communities: !entertainment@beehaw.org !moviesuggestions@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Go Fash lose cash.
Be a bigot, lose your money ticket.
Act prejudiced, get no more of this! do money hand gesture where you rub thumb against index and middle finger
Conservative thought? Money is naught!
Right wingers get no dinner.
Neoliberal hate means an empty plate.
That's all I can currently muster... I'm not a fan of General Custer. I like yours better.
That article you shared is literally an opinion piece that even says the actor hasn’t specifically made antivax statements. It’s written by someone trying to infer the actors opinions without any verification. That’s not a reputable source. Also, we’re knocking people for twitter follows now? That could be something Levi looks at, it could be a random account added by a social media team, it could be any number of things.
You use the word “actively sides” - that’s objectively not true based on these sources. I’m all for holding people accountable but come on, this is just attacking the guy and using baseless accusations to merit it. Do you have any verifiable or reputable sources that prove this guy is a hateful bigot? If he is, so be it, but what you shared doesn’t support that notion in any fair sense.
Edit: based on some of the responses I’m seeing I’m gonna leave this thread alone. There are so many inferences, allusions, speculations, disreputable sources and “guilty by association” reasons being used to hate on this person that it’ll probably start an all day argument. To those who responded, thanks, just not how I wanna spend my time today.
Many Shazam! fans were shocked this weekend when Zachary Levi, who stars in the popular DC superhero franchise, said he was in “hardcore” agreement that COVID-19 vaccine manufacturer Pfizer “is a real danger to the world.” Levi followed up his tweet by doubling down and sharing a link to a Justice.gov press release about Pfizer paying $2.3 billion as part of a fraud settlement back in 2009. “Just one example of what I’m referring to…” he tweeted alongside the link.
...
But it’s not the first time that Levi, an affable presence previously lauded for his titular role on the NBC show Chuck, has raised eyebrows with his controversial takes. Earlier this month, the actor posted a clip of his appearance on the Shawn Stevenson podcast The Model Health Show in which he rails against American pharmaceutical companies’ advertisements.“We are carte blanche, ‘Do whatever you want, do the imagery of a guy and a girl on a date having a... throw that football through that tire, be in that tub, whatever it is, you know, and barely talk about the side effects,’” he says in the clip.
And one more piece for this truly perplexing puzzle:
Levi called (incel hero and lackluster human) Jordan Peterson “one of the deepest thinkers I’ve ever heard break down, like, human behavior.”
Another?
"I am no fan or supporter of Trump, and I find his behavior to be vulgar, callous, narcissistic, and lacking empathy. And while I’m not a Conservative, I know many who backed 45 not because they liked him, but because he was the only candidate they felt cared about their needs.”
He also appeared on 700 Club, founded by Pat Robertson.
Source
I am pro vaccines, but Pfizer is a threat just like Nestlé because of their general business practices. Medication ads are a whole other problem that is related as well. It is also true that a lot of stupid people do feel like Trump cares about their needs because how he says it lands even if his actions are the opposite. Those takes are all reasonable and not automatically antivaxx even if there is some overlap.
Liking JP and going on 700 club are both horrible and deserve criticism, but let's not assume criticism of pharmaceutical company practices means automatically antivaxx.
I won't be surprised if he is though.
I think it's a constellation sort of thing. The individual data points form a line that is very troubling. If it were merely "I hate Pfizer" and he had good reasons for it like "HIV medication in Africa is just too costly" that'd be one thing. But the silence, combined with the other troubling stuff? Not sure why we should blindly assume good faith given what we can see.
Your argument seems solid on paper, but it conveniently leaves out context and common sense, notably that he wasn't "merely" criticizing Pfizer. He nebulously criticized Pfizer--a COVID vaccine manufacturer, not pharmaceutical companies broadly, not Eli Lilly or Merck--in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and peak of antivax bullshit.
But let's just go even further. He was on the podcast of Shawn Stevenson. The first podcast episode I found of Shawn Stevenson regarding COVID cites in the episode transcript, among others, Geert Vanden Bossche, who advised stopping all mass-immunizations for COVID and has written all kinds of crazy, grammatically-and-factually erroneous content on COVID.
This is prototypical conservative gaslighting bullshit. "Oh, but I didn't say that EXPLICITLY, I only confirmed I agreed with the antivax host of an antivax bullshit "health" podcast that cites bullshit antivax "sources" and, no, I never retracted my statement, and sure I went on 700 Club, and obviously I love Jordan Peterson. BUT I DIDN'T SAY I'M ANTIVAX, TECHNICALLY. WHY WILL NO ONE SEE MY SHITTY MOVIES!? PERSECUUUUTIOOOON!!! WAAAAH!?"
I don't care about Zach Levi whatsoever, but this has to be the biggest reach I've seen.
So he was on a podcast, of which the host, in a different episode that did not include him, cited a person who has at some point advised stopping mass-immunizations for COVID (from what you said, I interpreted thats not the statement he cited).
When you're 3 levels of guilt by association deep, it seems like you're just grasping at straws to support your position.
Those links are just the tip of the iceberg!
As the Daily Beast reports, he also went on Joe Rogan, expressed admiration for Jordan Peterson, blithely allowed Rogan to misgender Elliot Page with no pushback, and gave an interview to notorious hateful bigot Pat Robertson on the 700 Club.
It's not like he's ever denied anything asserted by any of these articles. A Tweet like "I love vaccines!" or "trans rights are human rights!" would clear this up pretty fast. Yet, silence.
So... after some point, if it looks like an anti-vaxxing bigot, swims like an anti-vaxxing bigot, and quacks like an anti-vaxxing bigot... isn't it just an anti-vaxxing bigot?
I liked him for Chuck, didn’t think he would be a bigot
A follow on Twitter isn’t necessarily an endorsement. I really hope it isn’t in his case.
Scumbaggery aside, I find it incredibly disheartening that just following an account these days is enough to warrant having a giant red target painted on you. I really despise what social media has done to us.
Why would you follow an account like that, being a public figure, if you disagree with its contents?
Because it's healthy to read and understand the thinking of the people who disagree with you.
If their arguments are irrational and the information they use is incorrect, you will get a better insight of how they came to forming their wrong views. It can help you avoid doing the same, and it can help you in arguing for your position.
On the flip side, if you find that their arguments are solid and based on facts, you might be convinced to change your wrong views.
I don't see how being a public figure should any difference to what I stated. Besides appeasing the crowd, I suppose, which isn't a good reason to do anything.
You can visit a page from time to time to get 'better insight into how they formed their opinions'. If you're actively following it, that means you want to see everything they have to say, as soon as they say it (and you're boosting their follower count), and that's no longer defensible.
Plus, there would be at least some evidence of the guy arguing for trans people if that was the case.
'Following', for most people, translates to 'things I'm interested in'. Are you really claiming there's nothing at least suspicious in the statement "I'm interested in limiting trans rights"?
Lastly, they are free to correct any misconceptions publicly. Did he? Nope, just went on to criticize the medical industry and praise Jordan Peterson.
Are people simply not supposed to use the things you do as evidence of the person you are?
Maybe it's just me, but I don't see "following" as an endorsement at all. To me, it's an incredibly passive action which affects nothing but a near-meaningless internet number and the content which shows up in your feed. For example, I follow over 3000 accounts on one of my social media profiles. Do my views need to perfectly align with every single one of those? When does it become not okay to follow someone?
My point is, people can follow a page for a multitude of reasons. I follow several online accounts and politicians specifically because I disagree with the content they post. I personally think it's better to know what your enemy is up to rather than to stick your head in the sand and pretend they don't exist. I would hope that doesn't make me a bad person, but there are many people online who apparently think otherwise 🤷
No, you're a normal person.
The internet politics have just turned to rabid purity testing, where even reading what the opposition (of any issue) says is considered endorsement and betrayal.
A sane person will look abnormal in an insane asylum. And I don't know how to better describe Twitter than an insane asylum.
No, definitely not.
When their objectionable opinions are pointed out to you and you seem to be basically okay with it. For example, not unfollowing the person, not stating your disagreement with said objectionable opinions, or offering why you think whatever they posted does not actually contain said objectionable opinion.
On Twitter, a follow is viewed as a passive endorsement that you like someone's content and want to see more of it. You can disagree with this but I think that's fighting an uphill battle. I mean, it's 2023, Twitter is two decades old, and as far as I know this cultural more has been true for most of that time.
You don't have to follow people to see their content, after all. It is a positive act which does mean something, and I've described what it typically means in the vocabulary of the Internet.