i mean, his audience isn't really everyone, you know? it's people who can understand that he isn't "trolling" in a traditional sense, but really is using high-art terms to discuss low culture, and denigrating high culture by the very language it's couched itself in. that's not trolling - that's writing. it was extant before trolling came around.
but the problem is that he condescends to that audience, treats them like he just discovered his shit is gold and surely you wouldn't turn down a handful? and people who don't even get that - people who think he's a troll or have an even less insightful reading of him - aren't even worth his consideration.
so i can't figure out what he hopes to accomplish. the problem is that such a condescending tone, even in the most well-read and -respected theoretical texts, is almost inevitably a point against x text. and the point those texts made was usually eloquent, or elegant, or visionary. the thought that maybe film as a medium is caught up in a high art=good/low art=bad or a correlation of what is popular with what is generally acclaimed, or at least given a free pass by the market-driven critical community, isn't exactly revolutionary. all we've got is condescending (though well-written) texts that are fundamentally incapable of engaging their audience, both through the intentionally hostile tone and the intellectually boring conceit.