How To Spot Bad Criticisms (With Case Study)

Bad faith criticism, or bad criticism in general, is lurking around every corner. Social media and platforms like YouTube have quickly become breeding grounds for knee-jerk reactions, media illiterate takes, complete misunderstandings, and zero critical thinking. In a landscape where people have more to gain from being reactive and sensationalist, a genuine understanding of storytelling and cinema literacy in general only slips further and further away. In this article, we'll go over why any of this matters, red flags to look out for, a case study of a particularly bad criticism piece, and some ways to rethink how we critically approach and engage with anything media-related.

(If you're here for the comments exchange as mentioned in my video, keep scrolling till you see the pictures near the end!)

The internet is flooded with all sorts of takes on media, ranging from thoughtful analyses (extremely rare) to misguided nonsense (most common). While it's not necessarily a bad thing that anyone can share their thoughts in a world previously monopolized by certain voices and influences, many of these ideas are flat out wrong. Yet due to the nature of the internet, it's usually these ideas (whether obviously wrong or more disguised) that take hold within mainstream discussions and negatively affect the way people think about not only the media in question but anything else they see.

These takes gain ground in the first place because most people haven't developed the skills necessary to really understand and evaluate a piece of media for themselves, even if they think that's what they're doing. Cinema literacy is not and cannot be taught — it can only be learned through experience with critical thinking and a willingness to engage deeply with the material. Unfortunately, people spend more time with other people's takes of the media than with the actual media itself.

Why does this matter? Well, when people don't know how to think about storytelling (or when they lack media literacy in general), then we lose the ability to better understand art, literature, history, culture, ideas, and most importantly, each other. Letting influential figures in social media spaces dictate us all on how to think will, for lack of better phrasing, make society more stupid. Sure, movies and shows will get worse overall if the garbage gets praise and the good stuff gets hate, but the worst side effect of all this is that people will get worse at thinking across the board, and therefore more susceptible to influence and easier to manipulate.

To prevent that from happening, we must take the time to actually think about the media we consume and any associated discussions we may come across. The skills we develop from being thoughtful about something as seemingly unimportant as entertainment will actually allow us to engage more meaningfully with the world around us. (And by the way, movies and shows are not as unimportant as you might think when they represent the cultural legacy of human society right now).

Red Flags in Media Criticism

It may not always be easy to spot bad criticism, but there are some general red flags that we can look out for when checking out discourse.

1. Bad Faith Criticism

Possibly more egregious than bad criticism alone, bad faith criticism is made with bad intentions. This often looks like:

• Intentionally twisting the facts to serve the argument

• Arguments and criticisms (or praise) based entirely on popular/existing takes for the sake of boosting the creator's own popularity

• Deliberately inflammatory takes designed to generate engagement

You see this often with the trend of right-wing media "criticism" channels that love calling everything "woke" if it doesn't fit their narrow world view while refusing to engage with the actual content or quality of the work.

2. Fundamental Misunderstandings

Many criticisms fail at the most basic level of media analysis:

• Not understanding character, plot, themes, pacing, structure, dialogue, subtext, world-building, and how these all work together or stand on their own

• Inability to look at a media holistically as well as its individual parts

• Misunderstanding or ignoring purpose and execution

• Too much emphasis on things that don't matter or aren't correctly applied anyway, such as judging fictional realism based on our world's rules

You could probably think of many more, but these fundamental misunderstandings come from having learned critical analysis "skills" (i.e. opinions) from others rather than building the experience over time and truly learning about storytelling on their own.

3. Flawed Analysis

When people never learn about storytelling, their analyses are flawed. Here are some examples of how this might manifest:

• Narrow definitions and understandings, pushing prescriptive rules rather than focusing on execution

• Trying to take a scientific approach to "prove" their takes instead of just being okay with presenting their thoughts as thoughts

• Ignoring the specific world-building and character establishment within a narrative

• Bad comparative analysis with other works, not understanding when comparison is appropriate and how to effectively compare

• Judging story quality based on plot points and twists being crazy and "surprising"

Whether they are praising or picking apart a piece of media, the analyses are not sound because again, they don't actually understand story or the nature of criticism.

4. The Takes Are Flat Out Wrong

Given the nature of film criticism, it can be hard to spot when a take is wrong, but there are some indicators you can look out for:

• Dismissing or assigning quality for superficial reasons

  • i.e. it's just a silly adventure therefore it can't possibly have any depth

  • fits the "vibe" of critical acclaim, or is "mature"

• X is bad because it rejects the status quo

  • they won't come out and say it, but generally you can tell it doesn't fit their understanding of the established "rules"

  • Conversely, Y is good because it fits that status quo

• Similarly, X is good because it tackles Y topic, or X is bad (usually called "woke") because it tackles Y topic, or more broadly speaking, has people of different demographics

• Not actually looking at the storytelling or execution as part of the take

This is not and can never be an exhaustive list of signs that a take is bad. You simply have to look at things on a case by case basis. The best way to figure it out is usually by developing your own understanding of storytelling. That way you can evaluate the criticisms/praises against the actual media itself.

5. Persuasive Rhetoric

How can so many people get away with bad criticism without anyone noticing? It's actually not that hard. All they have to do is tell their audience something is good or bad, typically be among the first or have a big following already, and say what people already want to hear. This is helped by:

• Misrepresenting the media in question

• Cherry-picking to support their argument

• Ignoring anything that contradicts their narrative

• Oversimplifying complex elements and leaving out nuance

• Twisting everything to fit their predetermined conclusion

Again, there is a lot more that people can do, but most of the time, the super popular takes that happen to get away with it are based somewhat in the status quo, and so regardless of how bad their criticisms are, they are likely to remain unchallenged.

The Real Problem: What Others Say

Often, what people label as good or bad writing is actually based on their own misunderstandings, which are based on the opinions of others. However, just as it's difficult to prescribe exactly what good and bad writing looks like, it's also very difficult to prescribe what good and bad criticism looks like. The best way to figure this out is examining the media and analyses on a case-by-case basis.

Case Study: The Supposedly "Bad" Writing of "Smart" characters

Last year, I had the misfortune of encountering a horribly made video about "Smart" characters with really bad analysis, and when I tried to present the creator with evidence to the contrary of what he said in his video, he had absolutely no defense and continued parroting the same opinions. Normally this wouldn't be such a big deal except this video got hundreds of thousands of views agreeing and assuming that his analysis was correct when it was, in fact, deeply flawed. So I eventually put together a step by step debunking of his video, which I'll go over below without spoilers.

(I've also attached at the end of this article my comments exchange with the creator, headlined by show title and a massive picture, so keep scrolling if that's what you're here for.)

The criticism debunked in the video above began by expressing that intelligence on screen wasn't depicted the way it works in the real world. But these shows aren't in the real world. The creator's criticism of intelligence was based on OUR world's standards while ignoring the premise as established by the STORY world.

• The premise of Sherlock Holmes as established by the original author that is then carried out in the BBC adaptation is that Sherlock is extremely skilled at deductive reasoning, and this is a character unlike any that have come before him.

• Meanwhile the character of Sage is a literal superhero with a brain capable of constant regeneration. This is not out of place in The Boys, a superhero show.

What he didn't realize is that his actual issue was suspension of disbelief specifically when it came to the genius character trope. This is why he pitted two "genius" characters, Sherlock and Sage, against two regular dudes, Tyrion from Game of Thrones, and the guy from No Country for Old Men. Furthermore, the suspension of disbelief issue is on him because the story worlds were perfectly adequate in establishing the abilities of these characters.

Extremely Narrow Scope of Analysis

Throughout his video, the critic used an extremely narrow definition of intelligence derived for the purpose of criticizing his two examples of "bad" writing. The intelligence writing of three of the four example characters was judged on their ability to conduct a plan and have that plan be evident to the audience.

Meanwhile Sherlock's intelligence writing was judged based on the "realism" of his deductions in his introductory scenes with John, which he clearly didn't realize are taken directly from the first two Sherlock Holmes novels and simply adapted for modern times. But of course, he couldn't get away with criticizing Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

The critic also gave prescriptive definitions of "well-written" and "poorly-written" intelligence that applied only to the examples he used.

• The basis for "good" writing was whether these plans and deductions are spelled out in excruciating detail.

• The basis for "bad" writing doesn't take into account the inability of audience members such as the critic to follow basic reasoning and plot.

  
  

According to this guy, the writing of Sherlock's intelligence is bad because they don't take three hours of screentime explaining every nitty gritty little detail in a show that is about friendship and character relationships.

Misunderstanding Narrative Purpose

The criticisms of both characters stem from a blatant misunderstanding of what each show is trying to do with the characters and scenes in question. An alarming number of people do not understand that Sherlock is about friendship and how a friendship can impact characters' personalities and lives. This show absolutely should NOT spend more time explaining deductions, and they're certainly not trying to trick you by keeping things concise.

If we have pages and pages of explanatory dialogue, when would we ever get to the character development? There's only so many explanations you can take before it goes from "wow that's cool" to "dude just get on with it." The job of the first episode is to establish Sherlock's skills as part of this particular story world, not to provide the average viewer with an exhaustive tutorial on deductive reasoning.

Sherlock's deductions of John need to be very personal and invasive, and this has to come across to John as not creepy, but impressive, because this is the catalyst of their whole partnership. The writers streamlined the dialogue for both John and the audience while also hitting the most essential points to convey Sherlock's abilities beyond a reasonable doubt, not getting lost in the explanations because the point of the scene is to show that Sherlock's weirdness doesn't faze John.

Misdiagnosing the Problem

While the two Sherlock scenes didn't merit its criticisms, The Boys did suffer from writing issues, but when you don't understand narrative purpose, you'll inevitably misdiagnose the problem.

The critic believes Sage's intelligence is poorly written because of a scene in which she says "this was the plan" [all along]. But Sage's issue in particular is a plotting issue, not a character one. There's no question about whether her intelligence feels plausible, but rather whether the convoluted plot actually makes sense, and whether the reveals are adequate. In this case, the problem could've been solved by adding a 5-second scene.

Otherwise, The Boys constantly shows Sage makings plans and taking action, and somehow the critic still wasn't satisfied and wanted more. This is because he took a problem with one scene and applied it to the entire season. Ironically one of the major problems with the season, the constant need to say "surprise" to the audience," is the same problem that crops up in that scene. That's why if you're gonna be giving writing advice, at least be able to discern between different writing problems.

And I hate to defend this show, particularly this season, because it's so soulless and manufactured, but at the very least it's not difficult to understand what's going on.

The critic says it leans into the cardinal sin of storytelling which is telling rather than showing, but he wasn't able to recognize the purpose of the telling. We're not being told this was the plan along to show Sage is intelligent; we're being told this because the writers wanted to surprise us. So again, don't lecture people about show don't tell when you can't even recognize the root problem behind the telling.

Problematic Comparative Analysis (False Equivalencies)

Perhaps the most baffling part of the original video was the reliance on ridiculous comparisons as arguments. The bulk of the argument about Sherlock was that the critic can look at John and come up with different deductions.

THAT'S THE ARGUMENT.

"Here's my deductions of John, and because they're different from those made by a fictional detective with years of expertise, Sherlock is badly written." The critic's deductions of John were completely made up, intentionally ignoring MANY details, but somehow he has the audacity to suggest they're as valid as Sherlock's deductions.

This is textbook false equivalency.

A false equivalency is when you compare two things that are not equal for the sake of making an argument. One simple example of this is comparing two different plants and how they grow. To best judge the effect of sunlight on the plant, all other variables must be held constant to not affect the results, such as amount of water. Only then can you actually compare the two plants and get a result that actually tells you something.

Otherwise, the two plants cannot be compared because you wouldn't know which variable contributed in what capacity.

The critic making purposely twisted deductions to prove his point based on what the costume designer and actor is doing, 14 years after the episode takes place, from outside the real world, is not equivalent to Sherlock making deductions about John in 2010 fictional London. You can't just cross into the story world like that and call it a valid argument.

There's also an incredibly strange attempt to compare Sherlock and Sage to Tyrion by flat out saying that if they were in Tyrion's shoes, they would do these magical things and therefore they're badly written while Tyrion isn't.

You can't say if Game of Thrones was Sherlock then Tyrion would just run around judging people based on bodily functions, or that if it was The Boys, someone else would show up and take credit for events. Neither of those things is true for the shows in question.

Even more baffling is that both shows did have similar situations to Tyrion's, but acknowledging those would've proved the video's thesis wrong because, like with Tyrion, Sherlock and Sage's plan-related actions are shown. Comparing unrelated situations for different types of characters in different types of story worlds is a total false equivalency. This isn't critique — it's literally just his imagination.

Twisting Evidence and Misrepresentation

The only way this person was able to get away with such horrible criticism is that his audience had the same lack of critical thinking that he did. That's why they didn't notice the way he grossly misrepresented everything he talked about. The whole video is just him taking things out of context, or ignoring context entirely, isolating elements, twisting and oversimplifying, and leaving out pretty much everything so you'd have to take his word at face value.

All shows discussed were molded to fit his claims, and the analyses or criticisms were molded to fit the shows. In the case of Sherlock, the "realism" of his intelligence is based on the critic's own misunderstandings and failed applications of analysis.

But anything that doesn't fit the narrative is ignored and left out, like the myriad of examples that showcase Sherlock's flaws and failures, or the dozens of instances of Sage showcasing the steps of her plan. He doesn't take into account literally any other scenes, doesn't take into account context, characters, scene purpose, anything at all. He simply extracts a scene and forces it to fit his narrative by leaving out information.

Practical Advice For Critical Media Discourse

Now, there will be criticisms out there that don't go into explicit detail or explain everything in depth, and that might work if they're meant to be more general reviews or just thoughts and opinions for people who just saw the movie or show in question. It's important to practice building up your judgement so that you can identify when an analysis or discussion actually works versus when it completely falls flat.

In general, just get in the habit of being more mindful when consuming media, criticisms of media, criticisms of criticisms, and just really any time you engage in social discourse. Be especially mindful of your own biases, preconceived notions, and any misunderstandings as well, because bad critics and bad faith critics will prey on these to perpetuate their incorrect ideas.

Try to engage critically, and really think about things. You don't need to form opinions right away, you don't need to agree just to agree or disagree just to disagree, and you certainly don't need to perform for others when it comes to your ideas.

Here are some quick reminders on how to be more mindful going forward.

How to Be More Thoughtful About Media, Criticism, and Discussion

1. Slow down your initial reactions

2. Engage critically, with a mind towards understanding storytelling

3. Learn how to evaluate content and context

4. Recognize your own biases and external influences

5. Look for nuance beyond surface-level observations

Of course, this is not an exhaustive list. The only way to be more mindful is simply to be more mindful. So much of the way we think about movies and shows and criticism in general is based heavily on shared culture, but if we can take a step back and really sit with ourselves a bit more, that'll be a great first step forward.

COMMENTS EXCHANGE

Fun little bonus for those of you who came from the video and wanted to see the comments conversation between myself and the original "critic" as well as a couple other contributors to the discussion.

SHERLOCK (SPOILER ALERT)

Sherlock and John in Sherlock season 1 poster

Comment from me: Your incorrect analysis of Sherlock operates under two assumptions: 1, that Sherlock hasn't had at least two decades (dating back to at least his teens as referenced in The Great Game, and even earlier given their family backstory) of practice doing research, experimentation, observations, and deductions, and 2, that Sherlock's character and purpose in the story is simply that he's "smart."

The first assumption is easily debunked with many scenes in which Sherlock is studying and experimenting on various things, whether for future reference (as suggested by John's investigation of Sherlock's website The Science of Deduction) or in present time for the current case (like measuring things to prove alibis, using the chemistry lab to test things out.) In the case of the latter, he's clearly not deducing things based off the top of his head. And in the case of the former, he has spent a long time practicing deductive reasoning specifically, not simply memorizing facts but learning how patterns emanate. You doing a bunch of deductions of John creates a false equivalency because you don't have Sherlock's experience.

Furthermore, Sherlock's deductive ability is a part of worldbuilding. Just because you think it's impossible in our world doesn't mean it's impossible in theirs. It's always important to remember that even though a story world may resemble our own, it isn't actually our own. It's the show's jobs to set rules for the show in the pilot, which Sherlock the show successfully does by telling us that Sherlock the character has these abilities through his training and skills. Also, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but in America at least, there are various jobs that require these deductive reasoning skills, such as FBI profilers or Metro PD detectives, so it's not shocking that the show Sherlock would heighten these qualities to create a character that stands out spectacularly in his environment, especially given that this Sherlock is based on a Sherlock that was created centuries ago with the same skills.

Two, the point of Sherlock the show is not "oh look at this super smart character who can deduce anything." This is a show about the unexpected friendship between an extremely antisocial man with little understanding of social cues and a man who is of average intelligence but has incredible empathy and consideration for others. Through their friendship, they each influence the other and that's what this show is about. The character of Sherlock isn't even intended to be your typical smart character, in fact there are moments in the show where he gets things wrong. I mean his first deduction of Watson is literally proved partly wrong later, when John reveals Harry is his sister, not his brother, and Sherlock says "there's always something," implying that Sherlock is often wrong about at least something. He doesn't know the solar system, he always loses to his brother Mycroft when it comes to deductions, he complains to John when the latter blogs about their unsolved cases, and his lack of emotional intelligence is often highlighted in contrast with John.

In one of your replies to a comment below, you claim "In the BBC Sherlock at least, you don't really see him being "wrong" and figuring things out" which is false as I gave examples above and makes it seem like either you didn't watch (or recently watch) the show or that your media analytical skills rely on the existing opinions of others rather than your own understanding of storytelling. I can't blame you though, many people are fooled by the surface level of Sherlock being a crime show about an out-of-this-world smart guy solving crazy crimes and don't realize it's really about how a strange friendship makes two very different people better.

My added comment: Also wanted to add this here in case anyone didn't see the other comment I replied to about Sherlock not being able to "see through Moriarty": ​ This isn't a flaw in the writing itself, it's his character flaw. that's what this show is about. There isn't a problem with the show for having a character that has a big ego. I'm not sure why so many people think Sherlock is supposed to be the epitome of intelligence. If that were the case, there would be no show because there would be no personal character journeys, no problems to overcome.

The scene where Moriarty pretends to be gay is critical to Sherlock's story because this is the first time in his professional life he is being bested. He's very dismissive of people he believes to be insignificant to the work at hand (and same with science facts like the solar system). Scandal in Belgravia is literally dedicated to Sherlock being wrong and being bested by Moriarty and Irene (mostly), and it takes Mycroft and Sherlock's combined effort to turn the tables on Moriarty and take advantage of Moriarty's desperation for having a foe at least close to his level so that he won't be bored. It's really important to separate writing flaws from character flaws, otherwise story analysis is rendered meaningless.

His reply: I agree with some of the broad strokes of what you're saying, but I don't agree with all of it. I agree that Sherlock has decades of established experience which is what enables him to make accurate predictions and deductions, but this experience is separate to demonstrating the thinking process, which is the key thing that's lacking from the show. There are minor instances of Sherlock not knowing things, like the solar system, etc. but these are extremely minor and insignificant in the wider narrative, where Sherlock is always correct about the important things. The only exception to this in the first 3 seasons is when he doesn't realise the person he's investigating stores all his evidence in his own mind palace. And whilst experience can make your guesses more accurate, or allow you to narrow down the possibilities, it doesn't allow you to shortcut simple observations -> 90%+ accurate conclusion instantly, which is the big problem with the show. Even IF Sherlock is 90% sure about something, it's presented as fact, which you really can't do when determining somebody's guilt.

My reply: Sherlock doesn't solve crimes simply with first hand deductions, I don't know why you think he's out here presenting people's guilt after a one time analysis. Take for instance Hounds of Baskervilles, does he know who the killer is simply by judging him immediately? Or does he only find out after heavy research, experimentation, and literally running into him at the crime scene? Every single episode requires tons of work to solve the mystery, he doesn't use it to determine guilt except in the comedic montage cases which are intentionally done for comedy (see "great game and scandal in Belgravia for examples") and character building (The Empty Hearse's scene between Sherlock and Mycroft making deductions based on a hat which by the way has Sherlock lording a deduction over Mycroft that is later proven wrong).

Also the whole point of deductions is to find trails that amount to something. Study in pink is a prime instance, where his very believable assessment of the woman leads him to know enough about her to put the puzzle together without knowing her whole life story. I personally have never found it difficult to follow his train of thought, and his deductions generally make sense. They're not even that complex. And the show even plays with the idea his powers are "impossible " without which the Reichenbach episode would not exist. And Magnussen is not the only example of Sherlock making an incorrect guess, far from it, and I gave you many examples.

You expect him to have known about Moriarty right away but also think it's unrealistic for Sherlock to know people just by looking at them? It shows you're completely misunderstanding these scenes and the show because you're so caught up in trying to explain away why you personally can't follow Sherlock's train of thought that you're missing the story purpose of these scenes. Furthermore Sherlock's deduction process isn't highlighted so you the average person with no science or criminal investigation background can do the same, but so that the audience is aware of his arrogance, ill timing, lack of understanding of social cues, and all these other facets of his character. the intelligence isn't simply a character trait, it's a flaw and a tool.

Additionally, there are instances where John shows that he's learning deduction from Sherlock and makes educated guesses himself, demonstrating this is a skill you learn and implement with knowledge and experience. But since you've ignored all the examples and analysis I've given you and simply doubled down on presenting incorrect assumptions yet again, I can only assume you're not interested in actually learning from this or admitting that you've completely missed the point of the show.

Comment from @Lunacorva (which I reference partly in my video):

It's funny how ever since season 4 and that awful Hbomber video, Sherlock has become the internet's punching bag. In this case, for example, it's held responsible for the Sherlock scan when that has been a trope since the original Sherlock Holmes. The character will make highly accurate conclusions about the smallest of details. For its strengths and its flaws, that trope has endured for centuries long before the adaptation (The example used is a completely textbook example of the trope).

But of course you're allowed to say Moffat is a bad writer. You'd never get away with saying: "Arthur Conan Doyle doesn't know how to write smart characters"

Not to mention the criticism here starts in bad faith. It suggests that the first clue was simply that John Watson "Had a stern demeanor"

But the ACTUAL quote was: "Your gait, the way you hold yourself says: 'military'". Which is very different, and much more specific than simply: "You look stern."

From there, the comment that he studied at a medical school, and walks like a soldier doesn't make "army doctor" a stretch. And from there: "Army doctor with a tan and a limp" can logically lead to wounded in action in a sunny place".

What the video leaves out, is that Sherlock DOES then acknowledge there are multiple possibilities for location, and thus asks: "Afghanistan or Iraq" since both are sunny places with a current, ongoing war the british were involved in. But with his current information, either could be possible. If he were truly the "magical psychic" this video pretends he's being written as, he'd have instantly guessed Afghanistan and been right. But since he couldn't possibly know that, he has to ask.

As you can see from this comments exchange, there is a fundamental disconnect between what the show is about and what it's doing versus what the video critic wanted to talk about. Since the entire basis of his criticism stems from an incorrect place, acknowledging it would render his whole video pointless.

SAGE (SPOILER ALERT FOR THE BOYS)

Sage from The Boys at Vought

In my comment, I referenced a comment from someone else who did a pretty thorough job with Sage, so I've included that comment here first.

Comment from @Omsmitten: I will say, with Sage, we know she didn’t actually plan on Neuman dying. The plan the whole time was for Singer to go to jail and for Neuman to be their puppet in office. Once Neuman died she quickly pivoted to a new guy to be their puppet, because the specific person didn’t actually matter, they just needed to be able to control them. She simply risked the fact that Homelander wouldn’t kill her, but it wouldn’t have made sense if he did, because she deliberately fed A-Train false information, and Homelander is a little more rational than we give him credit for. Also the incriminating footage on Singer as a pivot as well. The plan originally was to have him assassinated, and pin it on Starlight, then when that fell through they pivoted to the video. Every point you brought up proves the opposite of what you’re trying to prove.

Comment from me: As for Sage in The Boys, I thought the whole "this was the plan all along" at the end was....a bit annoying but only because all throughout season 4, the writers had a bunch of surprise reveals that come out of nowhere, so it's not strictly tied into Sage's character itself. Her knowing about A-Train all along was actually explicitly shown to us before she told Homelander and contrary to that, the stuff about Neuman seemed to come out of nowhere HOWEVER, I think Sage's intelligence still shows because she is constantly able to adapt to what's going on and we do have plenty of scenes of The Boys following her to see what she's doing. Fellow commenter @Omsmitten has thoroughly debunked your analysis already so I won't go into that, but I will say the one thing that allowed me to accept that we didn't need to know her plan just yet is because I have a feeling her plan isn't actually in alignment with Homelander's plans. I think she may be up to something entirely different, and giving that away right now wouldn't be appropriate.

Reply from the channel: Regarding The Boys, I don't believe I've seen anything that would debunk what I was saying. In my personal opinion, it really isn't good enough to say "there may be a further reveal in the next season" to explain Sage's lackluster portrayal. We can't point to a complete hypothetical as evidence that she was actually written well, and it still doesn't address how little she was shown to proactively be executing her plan, or indeed any plan, nor the seemingly foolish risks she took with 0 contingency. And I also don't think it explains her motivation, which felt very edgy and immature to me and not at all what I'd expect from "the smartest person in the world".

My response to him: As for Sage, I'll be brief: episodes 1-3 we see her many times explaining the plan to Homelander and executing elements like with Todd and the guys and recruiting Firecracker. 3-6 we learn more about how her power and mind works, she's not magically intelligent, her superpower is her brain's ability to regenerate constantly and she's taken advantage of that to educate herself as much as possible. Also she executes more plans, practically tells the audience she knows about A train, tells Neuman her backstory, and in 7 she reveals to HL she knew about Atrain. What she says makes sense whether she's truly in line with his agenda or not. Then 7-8 are about the shifter, and the way she talks on episode 8 suggest she's telling Homelander what he wants to hear, as she has been this whole time. She even said in episode 1 Homelander's ego could be an issue and we've seen multiple times in the season where it was. The error with her coming in saying "this was the plan all along" isn't in her characterization, it's in the execution of the scene itself and that's a major difference. To fix it, they probably would've needed just one scene of Sage reacting visibly to Neuman's death being announced, and then mentally preparing to go handle Homelander. Also I gave you the @ of the person who debunked what you were saying, all you had to do is search for them in your comments but again, you're clearly only interested in being right. Thanks for your response anyway.

This actually wasn't the only video I saw that suggested Sage's intelligence was poorly written. I saw another but refused to watch it because it's literally not true. I'm not sure why out of all the bad writing in this season, Sage's character is the one getting criticized. Perhaps people, like this channel I quarreled with, are conflating character writing with scene writing. Maybe they forgot how her storyline was written with the episodes being released weekly. Or maybe there's some other reason people feel the need to undermine her intelligence. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that even though the overall writing sucked, at least her character made logical sense with the story told that season.

But again, notice how I said things like we have plenty of scenes of this, and he flat out ignored all of that and honed in on the part where I said maybe she's up to something different we don't know about. He's intentionally ignoring anything that doesn't fit his own view of the story, because if he were to acknowledge any of it, his whole video suddenly becomes pointless.