Yes, this is the costume section. The only thing I want to say about your statement, and before we'll just have to let the discussion about his acting skills, is that you should stop saying something is a fact when it's clearly not a fact, but an opinion, they do not state fact. That's why they're called critics. A fact is something you can prove without a doubt. I just hate it when people are so ignorant about it. Film critics give their opinion. There's been many films that have been hits, even after critics totally flushed it down the drain. Nothing wrong with having an opinion, but this kind of behaviour is, for me, condescending and proves, again to me, people's poor knowledge of the meaning of the word fact and fiction.
So what you are saying, that in movies/tv (and art, music etc) and prety much in everything in life, there is no such thing as a fact, but only opinions?
So, someone can say, Superman IV is a better movie than The Dark Knight and because that is their opinion they are correct? I am sick of this. Whenever people cannot present strong enough arguments to ˙˙prove˙˙ something that they think is true, they resort to the weakest ˙˙emergency exit˙˙ of them all, the opinion back up ˙˙argument˙˙.
Well, thats not how things work in the cosmos. There are good things, bad things, so-so things, whatever. But standards do exist. People get deffensive because they probably feel, if they like an actor and people say he is a poor actor, they feel worse about themselfs for liking it or something. But that's silly. So you like a poor actor, there is something about him that you like, ok but if he is a poor actor you liking him wont change the FACT he is a poor actor. And Routh is a poor actor until he himself proves otherwise. Every single role so far shows that he is a poor actor. Just because you like him it doesn't make him a great or even a good actor. How hard is that to understand?
I mean, a few days ago I was arguing with a guy who said that that Keanu Reeves is a better actor than Russell Crowe. But hey I can't tell him it's a fact that he is not because there is no such thing as good or bad, right and wrong, just opinions. BOLLOCKS mate, bollocks.
In some cases, a lot of cases, yes, it does fall down to an opinion. Especially if you have two equally great things. Who is a better actor, Al Pacino or Jack Nicholson? Now that can mostly qualify as an opinion, though in some method of acting one is surely better than the other, but overall? Tough one. Who was a better composer/musician, Bach or Mozart? If we set a criteria (impact, influence, melodic complexity, composition, harmonic intervals etc) we might get a tie. But who is a better composer/musician, Jimi Hendrix or Justin Bieber? Hendrix, and that's a FACT.
You speak of ignorance, sure some people might be ignorant and label something as bad/wrong whatever just because they don't like it. But in that case they usually can't back it up with arguments. But a lot of people aren't like that. For example, most Nolan movies do nothing for me. But he is one hell of a filmmaker and I would never deny this just because I don't like him. I don't like what he's done to Batman but The Dark Knight is the best of all the Batman movies and I admit this even though I prefer 89 Bat's 10 times more. But me prefering it doesn't make it better and I don't try to claim that it is.
So maybe you should chill and realize that you liking Routh doesn't make him good. Routh is a poor to average actor at best, and that is a fact. Sorry.
t:
You obviously did not read my entire post, or you did and you do not understand it. That's fine. I never said I don't like Routh. I am indifferent towards him. But a good actor he is not and that is a fact, not my opinion. Sorry. 
