all in all it was a decent movie.

"but it doesn't talk about [insert thing here] so therefore it was not good!"

i disagree with that notion. no such thing as bad press, and all that, and this movie isn't even bad press. it was fun and entertaining, which is typically the purpose of most movies. it was not a fact-based documentary, it's hollywood entertainment that is shining a light on an important story.

i do find it funny how much hate the movie is getting in superstonk.

In any kind of situation, sorry if I sound like a broken record here, but I always ask myself: who benefits?

We know that Public Relations is something that exists as an industry and as a component of businesses. Businesses use PR in order to shape public perception, away from something negative and sensitive to the business and towards something positive and helpful for the business.

E.g.: what did tobacco / cigarette companies do when research started coming out demonstrating that cigarettes caused cancer? Were those companies honest and forthright, and admit to this true reality even though admitting it would hurt their sales? Or did they do everything in their ability to obfuscate the truth and confuse people, because those actions led to an outcome of continued profits for the company?

We know that wall street and other industries make use of shill farms. Shill farms are basically the modern evolution of PR. If you are a wealthy and powerful incumbent and you are not using shill farms, you will fall behind and lose control of the narrative.

so, in a contest of "promote Dumb Money because it brings positive attention to GameStop", versus "Dumb Money sucks and was bad and was not good and I hated it and it didn't properly represent the story", which one of these thought processes is helpful to GME investors and which one is not?

And in consideration of that, why is it that superstonk is so loaded with antagonism towards this movie?