Would also like to add something that will seem contrary to the spirit of the thread, but I don't think it is.

Outside of a few MINDBLOWING bad reads I generally don't react to, I think absolutely bad analysis is almost not a thing.

By that, I mean that even the most "absurd" hypotheses can be interesting. They can be creative. Sometimes they evolve into works of their own.

Also the most off-topic angles can provide the most fascinating results. Because when you're approaching a work transversally, for example analyzing the TV mise-en-scène of a soccer game through the prism of class struggle and syndicalism, Titanic through the repeated visual patterns observed in philately, or Jurassic Park through the prism of Muslim mythology, you're creating a GIGANTIC CROSS-SECTION OF THE WORK. And with this cross-section, you will unexpectingly discover a lot of elements, you will unearth symbols and dynamics no one has paid attention to before.

So generally speaking, I don't tend to speak badly of batshit, or simply seemingly unfitting, theories. Because I like the kind of perspectives they bring.