Top 10 Worst Movie Sequels

Let's be honest, the majority of sequels are never as good as the originals. They all like to make as much money as possible by relying on previous installments to carry them, never finding the defining features that made the original work. Here are those infamous attempts where the subsequent film never even got close to the quality of the original.

Honorable Mentions:
The Godfather Part III - Don't get me wrong, this was a good film for the most part. However when compared with the other two films in the franchise this was a major disappointment.
The Lost World: Jurassic Park - One of the greatest fantasy adventure films of all time was reduced to generic action nonsense with this thoughtless sequel.
Grease 2 - To be honest I hated the original as well. I just couldn't miss the opportunity to call this a shit sequel.


#10 Home Alone 4 (2002) (2/10)

The fourth installment in the 'Home Alone' franchise promised to be bigger and badder than the originals. What a huge fucking lie that was. There was good news however, as the central character of Kevin McCallister returns. Well, not really; the role is actually played by a new actor that looks completely different to the lovable pest in the original. I'm not going to spoil things for you, but let's just say that this new actor was so successful in this role that he doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. I just can't imagine what the casting crew were thinking when they thought that hiring a kid who's nothing like the original character was a good idea. Actually they probably didn't care. They had dollar signs in their eyes and were too lazy to do anything about it. Their laziness results in the new kid being about as bland as a character can get, becoming an irritating little pissweasel that deserves to be beaten into a bloody pulp by two of the worst villains in film history.

The plot doesn't make any sense either, and like the characters is also incredibly bland. Clearly this is a younger Kevin McCallister from his heydays, yet the film's villains actually remember him from the events of previous films. Of course nobody really cares about these major flaws when you have the cringey level of awfulness in the comedy this film reluctantly provides, which let's be honest should be what a 'Home Alone' film is all about. Unfortunately the purposely shitty nostalgic slapstick in this new film was just dreadful, which is all this film managed to provide as well.


#9 Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) (5/10)

No I'm not going to be one of those stereotypical keyboard warriors that feels the need to slag this film off because everyone else does. This is a film that's actually not that awful, and there's some decent little sequences and lines from Harrison Ford, who as I always like to mention is a living legend, and his mere presence in any film is always a boost. This is however a dreadful sequel considering how good the first three films in the franchise were. If you thought the casting of 'Home Alone 4' was bad then you need to meet the people that cast Shia LaBeouf in the supporting role for Indiana Jones himself. I mean Harrison Ford does his best to carry the guy along, which he always does because he's a living legend in case I hadn't mentioned it, but are we seriously meant to believe that Shia is the next Indiana Jones? If that's the case then this film can fuck right off.

The rest of the cast aren't that interesting either, aside of course from the living legend Harrison Ford. It really is true that Harrison Ford carries this whole fucking film, and even he's bogged down by this emotional nonsense that has absolutely no place in a fantasy adventure of this caliber. That's not the worst thing though. The real sin of this film is taking the 'Indiana Jones' franchise away from everything that made it great. There's no sense of grand adventure here, and the climax ends up resorting in serious big budget effects rather than giving the audience a sense of genuine wonder. Yes, 'Indian Jones' has always been incredibly silly, but here they overstepped the mark. Aliens and computer generated images have no place in a franchise like this, especially when the rest of the film is so ordinary and plain. The originals were a series that were a product of their time, and this sequel was proof that some series should just be left in the generation in which they were created.

#8 Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) (2/10)

In all honesty I've never been a fan of 'Star Trek', and this film sums up why I hate the franchise in a nutshell. Even the usually stellar aspects about 'Star Trek' films are missing here. It looks shit, the action sequences are even shitter, the characters aren't very interesting, and the plot is god awful and focuses on religion more than anything else. You can tell the script for this film was continuously rewritten because it's absolutely diabolical. The directing however is even worse, which doesn't say much about William Shatner's skills as a director, and also highlights the terrible quality of the material on display. There weren't enough rewrites in my opinion, because the final product is still absolute shit.

Some of the sequences in this film are so stupid you wonder how this pile of shit ever got released. Why the hell they made Uhura dance erotically for aliens is anyone's guess. I mean what the actual fuck is that all about? Was William Shatner aware that just his mere presence was enough for nerds everywhere to ejaculate profusely? You just don't need that needlessly smutty scene that perfectly sums up the thoughtless direction behind this film. This whole film reeks of the egomaniacal ignorance of William Shatner. He still hasn't properly apologised for this mess, rather blaming others for a film that he himself directed. Unfortunately for Shatner I'm a disinterested blogger, so he can go fuck himself for releasing this pile of steaming crap.


#7 Spiderman 3 (2007) (3/10)

You may be aware that I'm not a fan of comic book films, and if not well now you know. I did however enjoy 'Spiderman 2', and so naturally I was looking forward to a sequel that would surely be as exhilarating as the second. Unfortunately this sequel ended up being one of the worst superhero film I've ever had the displeasure of watching. Peter Parker, whose never been the best comic book character, is the absolute worst here. He's the least charismatic hero ever, and is just irritatingly bland in every scene. How is he the one that has to take down fifteen million villains? The villains incidentally are all identical in the respect that they all follow the same trait of having absolutely no depth and are just used as a shock factor rather than any actual merit. Maybe they should of stuck with the single well written villain like a good film would.

Yeah okay, this film still looks as good as the originals, but there's no substance. It's actually quite repetitive and boring, which for a superhero film is quite an impressive non-achievement. And I still don't understand how you can have three villains and still expect a decent story to present itself to the audience. Not surprisingly too many villains makes the plot become a convoluted mess, which isn't helped by this film never deciding whether it wants to be a superhero flick or a romantic comedy. The finished product shows us that this version of 'Spiderman' doesn't do either of those things at all well, which isn't surprising from a film that has all the hallmarks of a small kid in a sweet shop. At one time 'Spiderman' was becoming the next cool superhero. Not after this film was released.


#6 The Hangover Part 3 (2013) (2/10)

I never enjoyed the second Hangover film, but the third was worse on a whole new level. 'Annoying' would be the perfect word to describe this film. It certainly isn't funny, just disturbing how any of the scenes can pass as comedy. People often criticise comedy sequels, and here we have the perfect example of a franchise that's more than overstayed its welcome and completely run out of ideas. The jokes in this one were replaced by basic shock factor, albeit shocking scenes that weren't very exciting.

The plot is equally stupid. For starters there isn't even a hangover. The plot just tries to use former glories to promote a sub-standard film that desperately tries to be bigger and better than the previous two, but forgets that comedy should be the crucial element in a comedy film. Pulling off a comedy sequel is no easy task, but I have no time for lazy sequels that just want to act as a cash cow instead of becoming inspiring and professional standalone pictures. I do respect the people involved for trying to veer away from the previous 'hangover' premise of the first two films, even though that was the most interesting part and a big talking point for the audience, but you just can't replace that empty void with just a plain plot with little laughs along the way. Surprisingly despite this film's success there hasn't been a fourth in the franchise.


#5 Blues Brothers 2000 (1998) (3/10)

'Blues Brothers 2000'. A film that doesn't contain the original Blues Brothers, and was released in 1998. That doesn't sound like a recipe for disaster does it? To be fair to the film the music isn't all that bad, it's just that the comedy and action parts ruin this one; which is really everything else this film offers. This sequel is so totally different from the original that I'm not even sure we can count this as a sequel. The cast is so different from the original it blows my mind they thought of rehashing the whole idea of the first film. Dan Aykroyd returns; that's it. The rest is a cast of wannabes trying to fill the shoes of roles they never had a hope of emulating. Especially that fucking kid, who should never be anywhere near a mature comedy film like the 'Blues Brothers'. I don't know who he is or how they fucking found him, but in all honesty I don't give a shit. Why the fuck would anyone try and shove a child into a mature comedy?

Once you've stopped getting angry at the hopeless cast you have a plot that doesn't even try to uncover new ground to enjoy. It's same old, same old, and that's just laziness that shouldn't be allowed in a film that attempts to revitalise a cult classic. There's no passion, no energy in this one. You get the sense the actors here want to line their pockets because they've got nothing better to do. That attitude certainly isn't funny to me, but then neither is the film. Hell, it's not even amusing. This is a limp wristed imitation of a classic that should never have been released. John Beluschi, who was one of the stars of the original, must be turning in his grave.


#4 Jaws: The Revenge (1987) (2/10)

The final straw in a franchise so legendary it's shameful to watch it stoop to such lows. If you're wondering why this guaranteed moneymaker of a series hasn't been rebooted since then I suggest you give this a watch. You can actually physically see the series go down the drain when we discover that sharks somehow have a psychic connection to relatives of their food, and can therefore trace members of their victim's family to further terrorise. No really, that is the plot. What makes it even more stupid is that it's sometimes told in flashbacks where the character in question wasn't even present. How they ever convinced seasoned veterans like Michael Caine to climb aboard this disaster is a mystery to me. Surely Caine must have realised sometime through production that he had been given an uninteresting script, with shit costars, and a development that went through absolute hell.

Even the shark is terribly made. This once terrifying villain has been reduced to an ugly prop that roars. As a zoology student not only am I offended by this depiction of a supposedly realistic shark, but I'm also qualified to tell you that roaring sharks are just ridiculous. The original shark actually put fear into the hearts of moviegoers everywhere and made them stay out of the water for an eternity, but this shark, the subject of the film, looks worse than the original and feels about as living as a zombie. This once iconic character is now kept as the least mysterious monster in cinema history, essentially becoming an aggressive tumor that can't help but repetitively ruin scenes, always appearing with the same opened mouthed expression that I suppose is fitting for a shark realising he's appearing in crap like this. This shark is not scary in any way, it's just sometimes there in the film for absolutely no reason. It must be a miracle for this shark when it's finally put out of its misery, being stabbed in a scene that resembles a cocktail stick attacking a sausage more than an epic death. A fitting end to an equally terrible film that was so shit that it's managed to get a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.


#3 Superman IV: The Quest For Peace (1987) (2/10)

Remember when cheesy campness was good in a superhero film? Well this film decides there wasn't enough cheesy campness in the original 'Superman' films and takes it upon itself to ruin the legacy of possibly the most iconic superhero of all time. I'm not sure if there was a plot lying around somewhere in this film, but I sure as hell couldn't find one. The resulting mess is just a generic snoozefest, which isn't very impressive in a superhero film with quite possibly the ultimate superhero for an action packed laugh. The only laughs in this film are overshadowed by horror or sheer disbelief as superman saves the Statue of Liberty in possibly the worst looking scene of all time, and then saves and rebuilds The Great Wall of China from the horrors of a villain named 'Nuclear Man'.

'Nuclear Man' is actually so pathetic it's hilarious. Firstly he's called 'Nuclear Man', which already sounds like the shittest supervillain of all time, and that's even before you find out he's solar powered. He doesn't look any better than he sounds either, rather resembling something you would find in a back alley San Francisco club. And to top it all off he doesn't even talk. He's the most pathetic character of all time that we as the audience have to try and believe is the biggest threat to mankind. 'Nuclear Man' is if you haven't realised the worst social commentary for nuclear warfare ever created, and this film manages to butcher such a serious theme at such an unstable time. Turns out 1987 was just a terrible year for movie sequels. Saying this is worse than 'Jaws: The Revenge' is all you need to know.


#2 Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999) (5/10)

I'm one of those people that tries to defend this film from the barrage of hate it so frequently gets, but there's no denying that this was a dreadful sequel in one of the most beloved franchises in cinema history. The only thing 'The Phantom Menace' does better than the originals is look really nice, which is a shame considering this is a beautiful film that actually has some great action sequences and a fucking cool villain, but unfortunately no soul or depth that are crucial for a great space opera. But creator George Lucas knew this. He redefined the rules of sci-fi with the original trilogy, so there's no excuse for this film going so horribly wrong.

Everything fans loved about the original 'Star Wars' films was ripped to shreds by multiple dreary sequences, uninteresting characters and settings, and a less than spectacular plot. How can you possibly justify having such hateful characters as Jar Jar Binks and a young Darth Vader in such a prestigious series? And yes there was a spoiler there, but do you honestly still need one for the Darth Vader plot point? A crucial plot point may I add that was almost completely ruined by this film alone. It's an insult that when you have a universe as rich as the 'Star Wars galaxy' you make a film as mundane as this. The original trilogies had 'The Death Star' blowing up twice, but all we got with this revamped version was some trade disputes between parties that weren't at all interesting. And that's the problem with this film. There's no ambition, so sense of grand adventure, no sense that we're witnessing galaxy changing events unfold. To surmise this was a sequel that forgot what made the originals great.


#1 Batman & Robin (1997) (0/10)

Has anything positive ever been said about this pile of shit? In all honesty if I have to go through everything wrong with this film you'll be reading this article for years. I guess I have to start with the huge issue of characters. It's almost a competition which is the worst character in this film, because all of them are so fucking awful it's not even funny. My choices are the two pictured above. That's Poison Ivy and Bane, who have no chemistry, walk about the set like two planks of wood, and have zero character development. In truth there's not a single thing noteworthy about any characters in this horror show. It doesn't help that the two central villains working together want to freeze the planet so Poison Ivy can grow flowers on it. How does that make any sense?

Even Batman himself suffers from the same flaws. George Clooney is a dreadful lead here, and even the hilariously bad puns of Arnold Schwarzenegger can't save this stinker of a performance. The fact that these performances almost killed such a beloved character speaks volume about how bad this film really is. And it doesn't stop there. The shitty awfulness just keeps going and going, torturing your insides. Shit scene after shit scene just keeps on appearing. I was so tortured by this abomination that I'm now experiencing PTSD just writing about it. Director Joel Schumacher did eventually apologise for this film, but that's not good enough. Simply apologising for an easily preventable atrocity that almost ruined a historic franchise just rubs salt in the wound in my eyes.

The Christoforge Column (13/11/16)

My Thoughts on the US Election

I've seen a number of articles since Trump shockingly won the US election whinging about how this outcome has to be the result of institutionalised sexism and bigotry. All these articles essentially fall into the same trap of not actually providing any evidence that sexism had the definitive role in this issue, and that's simply because sexism has no place in this debate. The real reason why people are blaming Trump's victory on sexism is that the people whinging about Trump's ascent into power just can't accept that their opinion might not be emulated by the American people. They're also in denial, believing in tinpot conspiracy theories because the truth in this issue is so much more shocking. The truth is that Trump is the deserved victor of this election, and actually spoke to the American people. I can't say I'm surprised by the outrage surrounding Trump's election win. After all these are the same radical fucktards that tried to protest democracy after the 'Brexit' vote here in the UK, but as American's are great at taking things to the next level, this protest is on a different scale. Maybe instead of blaming the system these people should be looking at themselves, as the constant bemoaning that sexism is inherently rooted in any opponent of Hillary Clinton is just another reason why the opposition got the victory.

This segment is not a rally cry for Trump supporters; I'm not actually a fan of the man, but despite recognising his many flaws, I also have to admit that Trump was a better candidate for the presidency than Hillary Clinton. I still wouldn't vote for the man, but given a choice at gunpoint between Trump and Clinton and the former would get my support hands down. The reasons are simple: Trump is not some two dimensional symbol of the establishment who simply repeats what the electorate want to hear. The average American citizen is fed up of hearing about this promised land of prosperity that keeps being alluded to every single presidential cycle. What Trump has shown is they would prefer a straight talking figure they believe can enact radical changes to give themselves a better vision of the future. Clinton played the election by the book. She spent a ridiculous amount more than Trump on her campaign, so I think it's refreshing to see a change in the atmosphere of politics. I'm still not convinced if Trump is the right man for this change, as he seems more of an evil billionaire putting on a facade than a beneficial President for the American people. Maybe Trump is the radical change that America needs. All we can say is that in this election the underdog won, and I think this is a huge chance for Trump to prove everyone wrong, because boy has he got a divided country on his hands at the moment.


Political Symbols in Sport

You may have recently seen that the English FA have decided to allow their players to wear poppy armbands during their Remembrance Day game with Scotland, going against FIFA laws that have banned any political messages from being worn at sporting events. Firstly I'd like to say I agree with the rule that political symbols should never be anywhere near a sporting event. Sport should always be free from political influences and commercialism, instead just showcasing sporting prowess. That's not always going to be a realistic view of the sporting world, but in this particular scenario the English FA have absolutely no business trying to force poppies on the armbands of football players.

This isn't a case where players that refuse to wear a poppy are disrespectful of fighting soldiers, nor are FIFA themselves. FIFA are absolutely correct in their ruling that the poppy represents a national and political symbol for warfare, and even in the British Isles it can be conversely seen as a symbol for Irish nationalism. This debate is a political issue that has no place at any sporting game, and the FA should be ashamed that this fiasco is being promoted ahead of the actual game. I have to ask the FA what the the fucking point of incurring a pointless fine for such a minor action is. Let's be honest this is nowhere near the same scale as the 1968 Olympics black power salute, rather just forcing poppies onto football players in the name of common decency. It's a shame that events like these have made the poppy into a trivial symbol that's become mandatory for anyone in the public eye to wear in recent times. But most of all it's a damn shame that the meaning of such a powerful symbol has become overshadowed by the actions of twenty two men on a football field. If I was the FA I would be embarrassed by this pitiful decision.


How Talent Shows Are Ruining Art

I fucking hate the current format of talent shows. How have we humans got to a stage where we can make and break the dreams of aspiring performers with the push of a button. Not only does this bring up a generation who think they can control famine in Africa with the single click of a TV remote, because as I'm now starting to realise viewers now need to be empowered for stupid formats like this to work. The format becomes even more hellish when you discover that on top of being ridiculed by half the national population the contestants also get judged by four so called experts, who in reality have about as much chance of spotting actual talent as Stevie Wonder has of wining a game of 'I Spy'. All these overpaid twats do is suck up to artificial charm that then forces the most divisive of entrants into the limelight, all to get views on their specific talent show. I'm sorry but cream should rise to the top, not cunts.

It's no wonder why the products of talent shows are almost always annoying cretins, because they're the ones who were instantly judged to be 'unique' in a split second, and not some actually decent people who worked their fucking ass off because they care about their creations. That's the genuine charm that these so called experts always miss. You don't find that unique charm or charisma from people being shoehorned into the public eye without merit.  The phony contestants that do find success not surprisingly don't find it for very long, but apparently we as the audience should believe that this moment of brief notoriety is what that person is living for. Sure it will change that person's life, but how many more examples of this rinse and repeat formula do we need before this cliched nonsense gets tiring. Talent shows are a fucked up formula that sees decent human beings exploited on television like some sort of circus act that the audience can't help but poke with sticks through the bars of the cage. What a surprise this horrific format rarely finds any genuine talent. Any of those judges will never find the next influential artist because because they're far too busy producing the same lame old thrown together shit, that although sells and is favored by the voting audience, but will be forgotten in time quicker than the time it took this undeserving asshole to appear on our screens.

Morons of the Internet: Wessex Scene (11/11/2016)

This is the segment where I scour my favourite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favourite human beings.

In this edition I'm continuing my war against shitty journalism, and what better way to find shitty journalism than looking in student publications. Here we have an opinionated, but unfortunately ill informed piece on this year's US presidential election. And if you're wondering, yes I did delay this article until after the election because I'm that petty.
______________________________________________________________________________
https://www.wessexscene.co.uk/politics/2016/09/28/if-clinton-was-male-she-would-win-in-a-landslide/
______________________________________________________________________________

Wow, you certainly can't complain this student publication doesn't address the big issues, or at least tries to. To make such a huge overriding statement like that you're going to have to provide a lot of evidence and insight, because this is a huge accusation that a lot of sophisticated and detailed commentary can be centered on. However to say there's going to be any journalistic talent in this piece would be wishful thinking. Remember the initial assertion in this piece is that Clinton isn't dominating the election because she's a woman; let's keep that statement in mind for future reference.

The article doesn't start well. The first paragraph is full of hypothetical points that mean fuck all. Just stating that Hillary Clinton is not a man doesn't answer the fucking question, it's just conjecture. Yes, you've put forward the suggestion that she's a respectable candidate in your mind, but what's that got to do with sexism? Amazingly the generalisations get even worse in the second paragraph, and unsurprisingly there's no fucking evidence to back any of it up. The author here couldn't even find anything anecdotal to pointlessly include, instead spewing random sociological nonsense that in no way proves her point. Pathetic really. I also have to take issue with the many ridiculous assumptions. You claim that Clinton is the most qualified presidential candidate ever, but is that strictly true? Sure she was the Secretary of State, but Richard Nixon was Vice President before he went into office. How did his presidency turn out? George Bush was the son of a former president. How did his presidency turn out? Just because someone is qualified to do something doesn't mean they'll be successful in that role, and unless you prove otherwise that has nothing to do with sexism. Also I'm of the belief that Trump's win actually came as a huge surprise, with Clinton miles ahead in the poles throughout nearly the whole bloody campaign, so actually when this piece was written it was thought Hillary would win by a landslide. Maybe you should have considered that before resorting to such horrific generalisations and nonsensical arguments in the first few paragraphs that are all factually incoherent.

So just because you don't like Donald Trump the only feasible reason why Hillary can't win is because of sexism. That's the quality of argument this article resorts too. Sure there's evidence that Trump is a sexist asshole, but how does that relate to your point? It's a shame as for the first time there's actually evidence provided for these points; but none of it's fucking relevant to the original accusation. Normal service soon resumes with valuable insight soon being replaced with more irrelevant waffle and heinous generalisations. Seriously, how the fuck do the above paragraphs even contribute to the idea that Clinton would win if she was a man? You keep saying Trump is a vastly different human to Clinton, so why the fuck would their sex be the definitive difference? Maybe Trump is the inferior candidate in your mind, but that doesn't mean you should simply dismiss the man's widespread popularity because of your own clear biases. Instead of just judging men by their sex instead of their policies, which interestingly you don't do with Clinton, maybe you should actually bother considering the counterargument. I think you'll be surprised to learn that the vast majority of the anti-Hillary argument has nothing to do with sexism. That's still not the worst thing about this article. That's this incredibly warped logic that repetitively cries sexism despite providing zero evidence or even any relevant information.

Lovely anecdote, BUT IT'S NOT FUCKING RELEVANT. Definitely Trump the one that brushes over big issues.

This article just reeks of ignorance. You simply cannot just sweep aside monumental flaws in the Clinton campaign and blame her defeat on institutionalised sexism. Apparently sexism is the deciding factor in this argument, and not Hillary being in the pockets of the establishment, how she's funded, her controversial actions as Secretary of State, her constant health issues, allegations of corruption, and last but not least acting like a federal criminal. If for some reason you decide to moronically ignore all those issues then yes maybe this article has a point somewhere. You would struggle to find that point in this pile of shit however as it NEVER ADDRESSES THE ORIGINAL POINT. This is just pointless rambling, absolutely worthless uninformed shit that makes a mockery of serious journalism. You ignorant wanker.

Shitty Journalism and Evolution

I've decided that war needs to be declared on shit journalism. I'm sick and tired of reading stupid fucking articles that are as pointless to read as they are in content. They're written by fucking idiots to appeal to fucking idiots, which is a trend that has to stop. To start with I'll focus on how evolutionary science is being ruined in the media by these clickbait based shitty news sources, written by morons just to try and cram their own stupid and worthless opinions into unrelated scenarios. Whilst I'm critically analysing this horseshit, please keep in mind that this is intended to be a factual piece of journalism that should inform the reader.
______________________________________________________________________________
http://www.upworthy.com/something-fascinating-happened-after-these-male-baboons-died-men-should-keep-this-in-mind
______________________________________________________________________________

- Aside from being just an excuse to post vaguely related pictures instead of writing anything of note, this article just loves to make huge sweeping statements without ever explaining them. I suppose that's not surprising when for some fucking reason the article is in bullet point form. Has this really become the standard of journalism when the actual journalists don't have any care for the quality of written communication? There isn't any quality in the argument either, it's on par with something you would hear at a nursery school. I get the point of aiming this argument at men, as they're more naturally aggressive than females, which is more common knowledge than informative. However to then make the stupid point that men cause all wars, which isn't true, is just an insult to anyone's intelligence. How am I supposed to take an article about evolution seriously that claims poison gas is the fault of human males?  How in any way can you justify that meaningless shit in an article centered on animal behaviour?

- Natural human behaviour does not go all the way back to when we were monkeys because humans have never been monkeys, only primates. At one time humans and monkeys would have shared a common ancestor, but your lack of knowledge on the subject is instantly apparent. Having said that your description of mating behaviour is actually largely correct, albeit worded incredibly poorly, with no notion of any principles that lead to the increase in a certain behaviour. You prove my doubts in the next sentence by claiming that natural selection and evolution are the same thing. They are not. Natural selection is a singular component in the process of evolution. Survival of the fittest, another concept you clearly don't understand, is a Darwinian term that aids the explanation of how natural selection favors certain adaptations within a population. Nice to see we have an informed scientist writing this article.

- I'm getting the gist of this piece being set on the moronic assumption that instinctive human behaviour can be rewired by learning about a single group of baboons. Baboons really aren't that closely related to humans, and are separated by tens of millions of years of evolution, so it's a very questionable process to start drawing unqualified parallels between the two species. Even if we do give the author the benefit of the doubt in suggesting humans and baboons are related enough to draw comparisons on, we still have to address the fact that baboons live totally different lifestyles to humans, so we absolutely cannot suggest that this particular behaviour in baboons would benefit humans. For that matter we don't even know if this behaviour benefited the baboons, only that it happened in a single group.

- The baboons didn't invent a culture on the scale of what the author here is implying. Biologically they have adapted their behaviour in a way that doesn't appear to have been impacted by genetics or the environment, but that's simply not comparable with the human concept of culture. They changed their behaviour, that's it. Under the principles of natural selection you can bet your fucking life that this peaceful and idyllic behaviour would change if we introduced some unfavorable selection pressures, and only then can we really start to draw any form of conclusion. The author here hasn't grasped how scientific reasoning works, just comparing apples to oranges and inventing some skewed sociological point that stupidly assumes two drastically different behaviors are even vaguely related.

- The whole piece has an unbelievable confirmation bias, and one that arises from the echo chambers of websites like Tumblr, that enjoy cherry picking information and mangling it into a misrepresented point that resembles some form of pseudoscience. For reference here is the Tumblr response to this scientific work. Watch how these morons use this case study as a feeble excuse to start demonising male behaviour because a SINGLE SOURCE agreed with them. Neither Tumblr or this shit article decide to actually look at the wider picture and set up any form of scientific debate; they simply misrepresent any form of serious science with their own stupid opinions. This is the result of this toxic echo chamber of lies I was talking about, and I'm fucking sick of it degrading a proper science by lowering it to the standard of feelings and opinions. They have no place in evolutionary biology; rather more worthless subjects such as gender studies.

- The conclusion however culminates in a show of stupidity that trumps the rest by a mile. Despite naming only a single example of animal behaviour out of a whole kingdom this moron has decided that a single case study obviously suggests that culture is more important than biology in terms of behaviour for humans. You see I was under the strange impression we were talking about the behaviour of baboons, not the vastly different tendencies of humans. And even then, when the fuck does the study cited claim that culture is more important than biology in human behaviour? It doesn't. Still, even that's not the most stupid thing this guy says. He also say that unlike biology, culture can change. WELL THEN HOW THE FUCK DOES EVOLUTION WORK YOU BELLEND?

The actual study behind this pointless article is actually quite interesting and informative, and also something this author could learn a thing or two from. This article however is neither interesting or informative, drawing moronic conclusions that are weakly supported by the primary evidence. I'm mot sure what the actual message is supposed to be, but this article appears to be suggesting that it might be beneficial for more human alpha males to get tuberculosis. The thing is there's no proven benefit to this change in behaviour from the group of baboons in question, but apparently that's enough justification for this imbecilic author. All the study proved was that more aggressive males in a social group leads to higher stress levels in baboons; that's it. The continuation of this behaviour was largely debated, but that fact is completely ignored by these stupid journalistic sources that jump to conclusions and misrepresent a study just to push their very unscientific agendas. The mere fact that male dominance is prevalent in various primate genomes is enough counter evidence to prove that aggressive and dominant behaviour from males has an inclusive fitness benefit over a given population. That's the overriding science here, not some sociology based moral story that takes any science away from this article. How about journalists start sticking to stuff they actually know something about and stop broadcasting myths on the internet that idiots will suck up and believe?