I don't watch shows made after 2016 because they are usually gay, woke and boring, but I have seen that some recent shows have been called "critically acclaimed" from reading reviews (or looking on wikipedia). Is this phrase overused, or are these shows that good? I would think that a critically acclaimed show would be near timeless, like the first seasons of Simpsons, Game of thrones, Twin peaks, South Park, Duckman, etc. Here is a random list of shows that are "Critically Acclaimed"
>Big Mouth
>Castlevania Nocturne
>Bojack Horseman
>Arcane
>She-Ra and the Princesses of Power
>Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts

Am I to believe that these shows are as close to or are the perfection of the art? Are they really incredible shows that demand some attention? I just find it interesting that there are so many shows that are described as critically acclaimed, yet have no cultural impact, or even any minor impact on social sites. Or is it all part of the whole ecosystem of paid reviewers/shills who approve of nearly all slop for the unknowing audience?
Does /co/ feel the same way?

>>213469118
This movie fucking sucked


>Boring characters, except brolin
>Does that stupid multiple POV character segments, so not only is the movie boring, you have to watch the same boring scenes multiple times.
>Is more suspense than horror. Becomes boring when you simply want to know the answer.
>No real conclusion, or information about the witch.

Just more reddit slop.

>>149453110
What about the season 6 intro? That deserves more hate than could ever exist.

https://youtu.be/aon3SdpYins?si=06unkm41QwzO8MgO