>>Why don’t they take the money they spent on this idiocy and spend it on their pet cause and then leave the rest of us alone? <<
God, I am so sorry they put a gun to your head and forced you, a la “Clockwork Orange” to watch “Sharknado” and its siblings.
You really should have contacted the authorities since I am pretty sure that is kidnapping.
What makes you think I watched either?
My point again, “Hollywierd will spend who knows how much on crap like this and then try to holier-than-thou us into “saving world hunger” or some other persistent human-nature caused condition. Why don’t they take the money they spent on this idiocy and spend it on their pet cause instead of buying commercial time to beg us for money?”
The usual sales pitch, “...for the price of a cup of coffee, you could feed impoverished little Bobby\Djimbe\Mohammad for a month...”
So in other words, if they are so enamored of their pet causes they will beg you and I for money, then they should take the millions they spend on these “Zombie Beaver” crap movies (and the “crap” description is simply not arguable when we are talking “Zombie Beavers”), and instead donate those monies to their pet causes?
That the industry would rather make “Zombie Beaver” movies than feed impoverished little Bobby\Djimbe\Mohammad,(or saving the whales; or clothing the homeless) should speak volumes to those paying attention.
Now, I could really not care any less about what they do with their money, but I have a low tolerance for hypocrites and I reserve the right to point it out whenever I choose to.