They're not looked down upon, it's just the premise of this article that a podcast comedian's pet peeve is the worst thing on Earth, and the comments like to play along. Brian Posehn is way higher up on the food chain than their usual D-list interview subjects.

Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder!

I feel the premise of this feature is what derails it. Whatever it is that bothers someone, it's next to impossible that they'll be able to riff off that irritation entertainingly for an entire article's length. It becomes like listening to a catalog of someone's dreams, full of aspects of themselves that no one has…

Sometimes things are neither the worst nor the best, but merely okay.

Naturally, though, free speech advocates aren’t happy about this, with the Internet Association

We call what he's wearing in that picture a "No."-tee.

Next to no one in the movie audience knew anything of Iron Man or Thor though, or had much of an idea about Captain America other than that he wears a flag. The only thing that making them recognizable to comic readers did was fire up enthusiasm among a very small group of vocal early adopters.

Since "Man of Steel" underperformed in front of investors, there's only one movie they've trailered in their "universe" that they haven't pitched as centered around Batman or The Joker, and that's "Wonder Woman" (which I have to assume at least some of TW's higher-ups recognized as a gamble from day one, since the…

the J.J. Abrams-produced revival, which has been classified as a reboot but, in clever Star Trek fashion, also remains in a sort of continuity with its predecessors.

It's definitely a superhero movie that asks you to think a little harder, making it superior to all its peers as a movie, but far less suitable for popcorn viewing. And I could see from that perspective how it doesn't meet some people's standards.

Correct.

This is, after all, the most important way that DC's movies have failed: in the eyes of the investors.

I didn't see any ambition in evidence, but okay. They couldn't sell a Superman movie, so they went with a Batman movie very late in the game, pretty much the safest bet of any superhero movie.

There's so many ways it's awkward. You don't even ask whether they "serve beer" at a bar or restaurant. You ask whether they serve alcohol, or you have no reason to ask.

And it was Duke Law, which is really just the same thing as you said, but said twice.

I feel like he's trying to tell jokes at the expense of a narrator who's a fictionalized version of himself, but the joke ends up being that he made the attempt at all. And it's being told by the universe.

I'd call Tucker Max's work a failed attempt at satire, genuine by way of a terrible literary roadside accident, in the way such things often are.

What? It didn't add anything.

The continued support for this show under various bylines made me wonder if there isn't some sort of real-life crisis in TV criticism going on that nobody's noticed yet. How can there be such bizarre enthusiasm for a show that's slowly going nowhere, hemorrhaging viewers all the way? Do critics now depend completely…

Down the crapper.