English subtitles made by MatrixLegion.
So permit me, if you will, to go on a rant about the state
of video essays and reviews on YouTube these days.
Star Wars: The Last Jedi was panned quite thoroughly
across much of YouTube, but since it is a part of
such a popular franchise, it had plenty of fans remaining,
as does anything with that kind of reach.
At this juncture however, thanks to months of
discussion, most points have been brought
to the logical baseline, with some who apparently
haven't heard a single counter-argument still trailing
to join the discussion.
At the end of my assessment I said that the film
was overall objectively bad in terms of filmmaking.
It is of poor quality.
The utterly broken script was bleeding errors 
with every second of screen time that passed,
and stating the conclusion at the end
of the analysis is only natural.
It can also assist in creating
a scale for objective quality.
Now, in relation to those who find my channel
frustrating, there is an ongoing conversation
about objectivity
versus subjectivity.
I have been made an example of by a handful of people
as the channel who thinks his opinions are facts.
Quinton Reviews: ...or, to put it like he likes to:
his opinions are objective.
And the opinions of people who disagree with him?
Well those, those are just subjective.
Mauler: Isn't it so strange that people can't seem to
get a quote from my videos that would even remotely
resemble that statement? The idea that I tell people
they are watching movies wrong, for example,
when my discussions are always concerned with the
facts you use, and how well researched those are,
versus the feelings
you experience.
Anyone is welcome to generate an objective opinion,
based solely on the measurable elements
of the content, or they can generate a
personal subjective opinion based on how they felt.
But they are completely
different conversations.
You can't be wrong for how
you experience something.
Patrick (H) Willems: ...and I'm not coming
here to tell you that you're wrong,
unless you are actually wrong
about indisputable facts.
Mauler: You see, you can do whatever you want,
however you want, feel what you want,
just don't tell me that an apple is a banana
and expect me to say "you are right"
by an objective standard.
As you just heard, Patrick made a great point, but these
same people purport that I make statements
about denying someone's feelings or watching
movies wrong, when they can't show it.
Though if we reverse that accusation, I actually can
use quotes, instead of inventing them.
So considering the amount of criticism objective
analysis receives from these folks, and how abysmal
the current state of hollow analysis is
on YouTube, why don't we explore their style
and see if it holds up
against any kind of scrutiny?
Patrick: I know it seems impossible
to watch movies wrong...
(dramatic pause)
...but you're watching
movies wrong.
Mauler: Oh dear, that seems
contradictive, doesn't it?
Patrick: And I'm not coming here
to tell you that you're wrong...
6 months later...
...you're watching
movies wrong.
You're kinda watching
movies wrong.
Mauler: This is what I end up hearing from
the same people who believe they have more
authority to speak on the subject
of film analysis than others.
Patrick: And all those plot holes
people complain about?
They don't
actually matter.
The actual problems are that many of the central 
characters are totally static and poorly motivated,
and the one major moment of growth
is caused by a ridiculous plot contrivance.
Mauler: So, plot holes in favor of payoffs don't matter,
but plot contrivances in favor of payoffs do?
Patrick, you realize that a plot hole is
a plot contrivance, but worse, right?
At least with a contrivance, it could happen.
A plot hole by definiton is a strict contradiction.
It should not happen. You seem to be
contradicting yourself quite a lot.
Patrick: While I make some videos that are technically
film criticism, I don't count as a film critic.
Mauler: These people write scripts with more
inconsistencies than the films I am trying to criticize.
And these videos that they make
are only ten minutes long.
Patrick: Critics are not bought or bribed (sure...).
Disney does not pay off critics to trash DC movies.
It's not like bad reviews
hurt Suicide Squads box office,
so why would studios
waste money on that?
A few moments later...
Before seeing a movie, I'll skim reactions from critics
I trust on Twitter, or glance briefly at their reviews,
and if enough of them seem
to dig it, I'll see the movie.
Why would studios
waste money on that?
Mauler: How to you write
that in the same video?
Many people accuse me of inaccurate
film criticism too, that I am not aware
of extra knowledge that would have
changed my assessment, had I known it.
This is actually a truth,
there are a couple of things that I am completely
unaware of, and that is a human error,
as you would call it.
But I am happy to admit that
I can make that mistake.
Patrick talks about how many critics are getting facts
straight wrong by not paying attention to the movie
- as if he is separate from that collective,
only to then in the same video say this:
Patrick: In the Alien, if the acid can melt through the
floor, why doesn't it melt through the entire ship?
Mauler: Patrick, acid doesn't just burn forever, it will
neutralize after it eats through enough material.
In fact, that is the immediate concern for the
crew of the Nostromo in the film Alien.
Brett: That thing's gonna eat through
the goddamn hull. Come on!
Mauler: After realizing that it could potentially eat
through the hull, they then find the spot
where it's reaching its end
and comment on it.
Brett: It stopped.
Never seen anything like that,
except molecular acid.
Mauler: Do you understand how many contradictions
we've reached in just a few minutes?
His video on plot holes was so poorly constructed that
despite the positive ratings on the video itself,
an overwhelming proportion of top
comments are in disagreement with him.
This reaction is actually very similar
to the one H.Bomberguy received
on his video in
relation to Bloodborne.
The fanbase will always appreciate a good
new video, but once you have time to discuss it,
videos with awful argumentations
start to fall apart.
I would say that one of the most accurate
examples of this clear disconnect
would be Joseph Anderson's attempt at
explaining why horror games don't scare him,
and his follow-up video.
His first video was very confusing in structure,
conflating his feelings with facts,
while presenting that an entire
genre is fundamentally broken.
This served to reveal a sense of ignorance in
the exploration of said genre, and I have honestly
never seen such a major portion of the comment
section in complete disagreement.
Similarly to Patrick and hbomberguy,
these were despite the positive ratings.
This is the kind of thing that will of course
happen to me down the line if I fall out of touch.
But how you respond to criticism can often say
more than the initial statement ever could.
Speaking of which, Joseph responded to the criticism
with an extremely condescending video,
explaining that it is in fact on the viewer to figure
out which statements he makes are subjective,
and which are objective.
This absolves him of any responsibility in his own
writing, placing the blame directly on the viewers.
As a result, the comment section
ravaged him once again.
(Filthy Frank: [muted] It's time to stop!)
These are the kind of videos you end up with
when you have a severe lack of self-awareness.
Patrick: At least 50% of the plot holes that I see
people complain about are things that are
actually explained in the movie,
if you just pay attention.
In Alien, if acid can melt through the floor,
why doesn't it melt through the entire ship?
Brett: It stopped. Never seen anything
like that, except molecular acid.
Patrick: But I guess if you're too busy live tweeting
about plot holes, you can miss some stuff.
Mauler: Patrick and many others like him are so
woefully beyond inconsistent that their only recourse
is to invent quotes from their opposition, in order
to make them look more ridiculous by comparison.
It's a hypocritical straw man,
and it's not very effective.
While this backward logic is splattered across different
conversational threads, my channel has been
generating more and more interest from
people who enjoy the central premise;
people who rather clearly understand
what I'm actually doing here.
So no worries folks, I am fully aware of them
trying to play the semantics game
to discredit my work and the work
of many other creators (like Rags).
Honestly, you should expect more of that as my channel
grows, since making enemies is just par for the course
on the Internet,especially when you tell someone
that something they enjoy is poorly crafted.
Or vice versa.
Separating how they feel from the art itself
is something they disagree with at the core,
so of course they get upset when you
point out a flaw they can't reconcile emotionally.
But, this is not a
foreign concept for them.
They are fully aware of the difference
between objectivity and subjectivity,
and they know when
content is poorly made.
It simply doesn't apply when it's their sacred cow,
thus they end up taking criticism as a personal insult,
but good Lord,
that is not the case.
Besides, it's much easier to simply smear people who
disagree with you, rather than open a discussion.
Isn't that right, Quinton?
Quinton: To state that your opinions, which mostly
come down to things like thoughts about the lore
and nitpicks about dialogue, are objective facts that
can never be disputed by anyone, is ridiculous.
Mauler: Uh huh, well, you can sit down for now,
I have some important stuff to get out of the way.
I'll see you
at the end.
Many people across all debate, discussion
and discourse from the dawn of time have
put in a strong effort to blur the line
between subjectivity and objectivity;
if not by malice, or ignorance,
it is a backward way to win an argument,
to redefine a landscape until your
feelings are considered fact,
with no regard for what the very
definitions of those words even are.
And with more and more controversial discussions
taking place, you will eventually find that the
word opinion is thrown around far more than
references to the topic being discussed.
The purpose behind it in this case,
is to champion the idea
that there is no such thing as good or bad content,
that everyone is simply sharing their perspective.
You know, the mentality that everyone
gets a medal, no matter what.
Participation is now
enough to celebrate quality.
Everybody who was in the
race now gets a first-place medal.
It's as if they no longer want to recognize 
how well the goal was completed,
or how shockingly
it was failed.
Of course, this doesn't apply when talking
about The Room, or Birdemic,
or how about CinemaSins?
It is very difficult to find anyone who
declares CinemaSins is a channel of quality.
However, CinemaSins is a form of art, he has
transformed the original content for a different purpose.
Surely, whether his work
is bad is purely subjective.
Of course, I don't
see it that way,
but what I'm trying to show is that they do
 use objectivity as a scale when it suits them.
But that fights their principle of
everything coming down to an opinion,
so you will only find it happening with the things
they so desperately want beaten into the ground.
Ultimately, if you subscribe to these channels,
their standards get very confusing, so I say
let's throw them out the window in
favour of something far more consistent.
I think I should be clear in saying that anyone, including
myself, likely in this very series of videos,
will eventually in their lives create bad pieces of content,
and it can be assessed for a conclusion.
There are plenty of ways
to determine it.
Let's start with getting facts wrong,
that would be a big one.
"Black Panther: An Unbridled Rage"
We open up in the 1970s with two characterd
that have a plan to share weaponry to community
surrounding the area with Wakandan technology,
because of the struggle that persists.
- No, it was set in 1992.
What's wrong with you?
"In Defence of Dark Souls 2: Scholar of the First Sin"
As far as I'm concerned, plenty of these show
an opportuniny for a backstab to activate,
and it comes across
as the game falling asleep.
- Don't you know that the Jester robes are
immune to backstabs, you hack!
"Avengers Infinity War: An Unbridled Praise" 
We then see the Hulk has been
transported directly to Kamataj.
-No, it was Sanctum Sanctorum!
How can you call yourself a critic?
Yes, these are a few moments of several
in which I get things wrong. Do you know why?
Because there is objective information
that I failed to research correctly.
I made mistakes in the art I created.
My work is therefore flawed,
affecting the overall
objective quality.
This is possible when you understand
that objectivity exists in art.
But when it comes to these people,
facts are frustrating because it can force
a strongly held position to face scrutiny, when they
would prefer to simply enjoy their perspective,
while letting others know
they are incorrect for having theirs.
This approach to analysis is novel and often
times very entertaining, but it will leave you
completely inconsistent and outright
embarrassing to listen to.
Especially when you begin to completely contradict
your own thesis without even realizing it.
"Bloodborne is Genius, And Here's Why"
hbomberguy: There will always be people for
whom an experience just isn't for them,
or are too dumb to understand how to play something,
or don't realize that something they think is good
is objectively bad.
Some people really like Fallout 3, and they seem to be
the specific type of people who think clicking a
dislike button is a decent way
of expressing their feelings.
In other words: objectively
stupid people like Fallout 3.
And there is a right way
to play the Souls games.
You can hide behind a shield a lot, die over
and over trying to memorize every encounter,
or use magic from a distance to avoid
having to engage with the game,
or wear the heaviest armor
and hope that'll save you,
but the reality is it's just more fun playing
it as someone who dodges and weaves,
who parries, and who uses situational
awareness to assess a situation.
Mauler: You guys remember hbomberguy.
He acknowledged my existence again on Twitter.
It was wonderful.
Last time he spoke to me it was
about my Dark Souls 2 series,
and in relation to someone saying they
couldn't be bothered to watch any more
than 10 minutes, he had this to say
at the end of the conversation:
"Have you ever eaten something bad and stopped,
or realized there were eight more courses and stopped?
Because I think people who do that
might still have some relevant criticism."
And in response I said:
"That is an interesting analogy and had someone
watched Part 1 and offered criticism for it,
I am sure it would be helpful,
but to eat a potato and complain
that the entire meal tastes bad
is simply not useful at all."
He chose not to respond to
me again after that exchange.
Completely Unrelated Audio Clip]: "Clearly behaving
like someone who definitely isn't mad that they got
owned online, and just wants to have a
reasonable conversation about the facts."
Mauler: But recently, the topic of objectivity versus
subjectivity came up, and I received this from Harris:
"You're 100% entitled to your opinion and you noticed
a bunch of genuine mistakes I made in the video,
but pretending that your opinion is the only
one based in facts, and people who find
that approach tiresome are just scared
of the truth, is a bit of an overstep."
[Completely Unrelated Audio Clip]: "I love being
acknowledged by my peers online. It makes me feel...
powerful, virile even."
Mauler: So I responded by asking why he's trying
to make me look crazy by implying that I think
my opinions are facts
due to achieving objectivity.
Though I shouldn't be suprised, he's not the
first intellectual to misrepresent my work.
hbomberguy: "I don't think you're a bad person.
I simply don't agree with your approach to video
game criticism. It's a little immature to write
as if you have achieved objectivity and I'm out
to make you look crazy for it, and
I'd recommend like, chilling out? lol"
hbomberguy: I guess it's easy to win a
fight with a opponent made of straw.
Mauler: You are damn right, Harris.
So he will continue to ignore me, or take potshots
when available, instead of having a discussion.
Which is fine, I suppose, but I must say
there is something very interesting
about the first interaction I had with him.
He pointed out a criticism of mine that was not valid,
as it was clearly taking a joke seriously.
I responded that even if it were a joke,
I provided context, so that the viewers
would understand that and choose to ignore me,
or see the argumentation for
how weak it was regardless.
I kept getting notifications of that conversation
as time went on, likely because
it was featured at the 
end of my Last Jedi series.
As a result, many had a problem with
how sheepishly he responded to my criticism,
to try and come across as if he gave it a chance,
only to pick up on one quote,
and then refuse to reply
when criticized for it.
As a result, he has apparently decided to delete the
tweet entirely, to remove that mistake from memory.
hbomberguy: It's the closest I think I've seen
someone come to admitting that they've lost.
It appears that I owned him so hard, with such
bulletproof reasoning, that he didn't even mention me
or my video directly, despite the fact
that we have mutual friends,
so I know he's seen the video and
I know it really pissed him off.
Mauler: He later admitted that yes, there are
mistakes in Dark Souls 2 and his video on it,
but they are not flaws in
overall game design, objectively.
They are mistakes,
but they are not flaws...
right...
(Yoda says it all)
I'm still happy to chat with you Harris, whether or
not your perspective makes a lick of sense.
We could get along famously, I'm sure.
Just stop with the snipes,
unless you're gonna give me a chance
to actually have a conversation with you.
It's a little bit unsporting,
that's all.
hbomberguy: I promise to not do that,
eventually, when I grow up, one day.
Mauler: So yes,
objectivity and subjectivity.
At this point, the concept has practically drawn
a line between two types of critical analysis.
The issue is that many content
creators will blend the two ideas
and then hide under the banner of 
subjectivity to avoid criticism.
Rather than being happy to compare
how they felt to the reality of the content,
there is this stubborn assumption that the first
thing you felt is now the only piece of information
that's relevant to the
deconstruction of the media.
How you feel may remain with you, but that doesn't
mean you should stop listening to other people,
exploring the content with any depth,
or allowing yourself to experience even more.
Instead, there's this idea that you should
hold onto that one narrow perspective,
which is detrimental to communication,
especially if it's based on false information.
The Sun being a star
is just an opinion.
Water being a liquid
is just an opinion.
And of course, the Last Jedi having a script
chock-full of defined inconsistencies is just an opinion.
It's a fantastic tool for the modern
analyst, it's like a free pass.
You don't have to do any work on your script
at that point, because it can't be wrong,
it's all just an opinion.
You know what guys? 
Maybe I didn't get the date wrong in Black Panther,
maybe that was my opinion of the date;
it was my experience of the date.
You can't say it's wrong!
Do you see how useful it is to
construct essays that way?
hbomberguy: I shouldn't be allowed to
talk about Dark Souls anymore...
Someone should just f***ing come and stop me
before I make a mother f***ing idiot of myself.
Mauler: You can't say
I didn't try, Harris.
So I had an extensive stream with my community
while playing Sly Cooper some time ago.
This particular issue was discussed heavily,
and there were several comments about
what seems to be this open frustration about using
the word "objective" whatsoever on YouTube.
There is no fear of facts,
 because analysts who claim subjectivity
will still employ that objective 
standard at their own leisure,
especially when it's not their
sacred cow being humiliated.
But to label something you found to be factual as 
objective is not something these guys want to do.
People don't want to use it because
it places a target on their back.
It means that there is no safety net
to fall back on, no chance to say
"it's just an opinion.
Let me have my opinion".
You're essentially saying that
your content is correct.
So if it turns out to be incorrect when information
is fact-checked or new information arises,
you have to admit that
you've made objective mistakes.
Many YouTube reviews still accept it,
and it's a great tool in an analytical arsenal,
because you can grow from understanding
the difference between facts and feelings.
Jay Bauman: Btw, when they let her out of the cage,
and they're heading into the city for their mission,
she's like texting the Joker?
Why does she have a cellphone?
Mike Stoklasa: Um... maybe
she hid it in...
some crack.
I really couldn't tell.
Jay: She had it in
there for years.
Mike: Maybe she found one while they were
walking around on the street, I really don't know.
But yeah, she's...
Griggs: Listen, you're being transfered.
I don't know where you're going.
It's from "Mr. J".
You gonna tell him I took care of you?
Harley: You're so screwed.
Mauler: RedLetterMedia created
an assessment of Suicide Squad.
This was a writing flaw they cited to assist in
proving a conclusion about the film's poor quality,
without realizing they had missed a
detail in one of the scenes.
So, they acknowledged the error, and despite that
flaw in their assessment, their conclusion was
still strong, because of many other references
that were accurate to the events in the film.
And the conversation was once again
completed after being amended.
Which is great. In fact, it's quite a positive
experience for everybody involved.
But not for these guys.
To be wrong is to have your position weakened, so
that is unacceptable and therefore everyone is right.
No one can be wrong.
Except people who use the term objective,
they need to be burned at the stake.
As I said, this is interesting to me,
because these are the same people
who make statements
of fact regularly.
It is very easy to find - hell, they
admit to it directly sometimes,
talking about the method being more convincing
and therefore useful to spread their message.
"In Defence of Dark Souls 2"
hbomberguy: I know I talk authoritatively sometimes,
but I hope it's clear I'm just offering my opinion
 in a way I think is interesting, or convincing.
Mauler: But you can't criticize them for that, because
they begin and end their pieces with that
good-old disclaimer, or as it
should be known: "the safety net".
Downward Thrust: Hey guys, before I start this
video off, I just want to say that this video
on Dark Souls is 
my opinion only.
The core of the game was a disappointment for me.
The ashes for me had burnt out.
This is only my opinion, I know 
there is a lot of Dark Souls fans out there.
It still felt a bit hollow. 
Personally, I think Dark Souls is a true masterpiece...
In my opinion, it was not enough.
For me personally though, I feel like 
the fire has gone out in the latter titles.
This is not your opinion, this is just how
I feel about the Dark Souls universe.
This is just my opinion,
yours may vary.
Go ahead and drop yours in the
comments section, I'd love to read it.
Mauler: Yes, those were all
from one 15-minute video.
These disclaimers are everywhere, and they are 
incorporated by many prominent creators,
and I am NOT saying that you should never use it.
I simply have some points to make.
The vague label of "opinion" is being slapped
on every element of a video essay,
as if the word means that everything you said,
whether feeling or fact, was subjective,
and thus
cannot be disputed.
Conversely, if a video presents
strong arguments on a subject,
many will wave it off as
"it's just an opinion".
As if the word means there was nothing
objective about the content whatsoever.
That is not how it works.
An opinion can apply to the sharing of a view,
constructed of feelings, of thoughts,
or of objective information.
It depends on what is said. It is the
difference between objective and subjective.
This applies to every facet of communication,
including discussion on art.
Though that doesn't mean you should
then spam it in every sentence of your essay,
like many have started doing
as an excuse for poor research.
Otherwise, it will end up in sentences
that absolutely didn't require it in the first place.
"In my opinion,
the Sun is a star."
Tywin Lannister: No, that's
not an opinion, it's a fact!
Quinton: (flabbergasted)
Mauler: The Sun being a star is, of course,
a judgment or view we can hold,
making it an opinion by definition, but discussion
does not require the disclaimer of "in my opinion"
before stating the Sun is a star, because
we all have the refined information avaiable
that proves
that conclusion.
Several standards are used to measure whether the
Sun reaches the requirements of being a star.
From there, we have words that are defined to
communicate those pieces of evidence,
and "in my opinion"
becomes redundant.
It is only when we share subjective opinions, or
unsupported opinions that we need that disclaimer,
but even then,
unsupported opinions such as:
"this game inconsistent hitboxes - in my opinion", 
does not absolve you from scrutiny
in the way that
sharing a feeling does.
Saying "the Sun is beautiful - in my opinion"
cannot be proven wrong, due to its subjectivity.
Beautiful is inherently a 
qualifier that is subjective.
So let's try another example:
"Star Wars: The Last Jedi has no inconsistencies
 in either its characters or its plot - in my opinion."
This opinion is inherently objective, and saying
"in my opinion" at the end would be redundant
because of course
it's your opinion.
But that doesn't
make it subjective.
The opinion lacks any emotive language,
it is a statement of fact.
To be inconsistent is
qualifiable outside of emotion.
That means the statement the person made
lacked experience or information.
It is impossible to come to the conclusion
that there are no inconsistencies, unless you are
ignoring the meaning of
words in the English language.
It is simple: you present the objective criteria,
 then you satisfy the objective criteria
and reach a conclusion.
Your emotional experience didn't enter
 into the equation whatsoever.
This should highlight the issue of "in my opinion"
being used arbitrarily to stave off criticism
when criteria isn't clear,
or when it's downright contradictive.
It's as if they believe an
 opinion can never be refuted.
Aside from that issue, when you make these
statements and you don't bother to back them up
with any evidence or argumentation,
instead opting for the safety net...
Quinton Jettster: In my subjective opinion...
Mauler:... you are not only creating content with
the amount of substance that is on par
with a "thumbs up or down" for each subject,
you have also admitted that you have so little faith
in your own perspective that you had to put a
pre-emptive scrutiny shield in front of it.
But don't assume that I'm immune from this.
I am absolutely guilty of it too.
It's just something I try to avoid when writing,
and it makes the process much longer,
hence why I still haven't said it
in other than quotations yet.
I understand though, holding (Holdo) a position
like "the Last Jedi as a masterpiece of a script"
is rough without saying
something like "in my opinion",
but to then use the definition of an opinion as
a preventative measure from evidence that counters
that position is ignorance
in its most classic form.
You can still like the content, you can still
feel whatever you will, but stop asserting that
it is logically written, when it is proven
not to be by any logical standard.
It makes the
conversation fall apart.
And from there, the party with the false or lacking
information, in this case being the video essay,
will be criticized, only to have
something rather strange happen.
There is no recognition of a mistake,
or a moment for growth to occur,
they simply say:
"Well, it's my subjective opinion",
and thus the word is being completely misused,
which is obviously very much to their own benefit,
and whether or not that is the motivation,
there is this rising obsession with the idea
that logic is a faulty metric for both
character assessments in storytelling,
and when assessing a critic
and their inconsistencies.
This all makes sense because humans are inherently
emotional, and they're not logical whatsoever.
Patrick: And you know what
human beings are not? Logical.
People are impulsive, they
make choices based on emotion.
Not everyone thinks exactly the same.
So if everyone acted totally logically all the time,
only making the most logical decision in
any situation, no one would be acting human.
Mauler: The issue here is that the word "logical" is
being used in two different ways at the same time.
If a character behaves illogically because
of a previously established character trait,
then progression is
 logical in terms of writing.
What happened made sense
with who they are.
In this case, Patrick is referring to
the film A Quiet Place, the story of a world
the story of a world in which you make a single sound
and it can get you killed in a moment's notice.
Patrick makes the argument that we should
not expect the characters to behave logically,
because they are human.
However, the reason that the entire video
is often referenced as a straw man is because
the complaint is not that they behave illogically,
it's that their character writing is illogical.
The characters are shown to take care with
sound dampening throughout the film,
making very creative decisions to account for this
dire situation that shows intelligence and care,
yet they blatantly ignore several options provided to
them by the environment that are proven by the film
to be far more
beneficial to their goals.
These logical contradictions in their characters
re made to generate drama in the storyline,
which is inherently incompetent
writing and very lazy.
Hopefully I can explain this
with a reverse example:
do you believe that Thanos'
plan in Infinity War makes sense?
Well, that's irrelevant compared to what comes
first in consistent character writing, which is:
do you believe that Thanos
believes his plan makes sense?
The film makes efforts to show his history and 
explore his values to explain his actions as a
logical progression, despite the plan being
inherently illogical when considering the realistic
effect of his snap, versus
what his intentions are.
That is logically consistent writing for an
emotionally irrational or illogical character,
and that is the nuance that you will
 rarely find in assessments nowadays,
because everything has to be
ten minutes long, or it's wrong.
I mean, good Lord, I haven't begun my
assessment, and we're already like 30 minutes in.
So in turn, when you criticize these creators
for lacking nuance, skipping information
or contradicting themselves, we end up hearing
more and more about how it's all just an opinion,
which ends up completely sapping
any meaning that word had.
We go from the fight for the best idea supported
by references, to waving the counter-arguments off,
and validity is defined by how loud or
far-reaching the message is, and that's sad.
Why bother with
any effort anymore?
Why would you ever pay more for a writer
than any other? Why would they teach it?
You may as well upload a video with the topic,
and a thumbs up or down,
it'll have the very same amount of
substance as the common reviews that open with:
(I Hate Everything's disclaimer)
This active blurring of facts and feelings gets very
confusing for many viewers who actually listen to
these people's scripts, their videos, making us
question whether they actually understand
what the word "objective" means.
The Dishonoured Wolf: ...even though
that movie is objectively horrible.
Just Write: Right, right, exactly.
But I wouldn't describe it like..
 I don't like using, like the word "objectively"
is just, it's very... it's tough to use
that word in regards to art, right?
Because yes, there's always that
one person who's like:
"Actually I like it, because of such-and-such reason,
this happened in my life", right?
And then it's not objective, right?
It's not objective if one person disagrees with it.
Mauler: Objective has nothing to do with whether
people agree world wide, that is nonsense.
This is an active attempt at making the
word taboo to use in modern analytical discussion.
But, we have to admit that
something is undeniably true.
Bookending your video with "in my opinion"
will actually stymie the flow of critical responses
from the audience, because they will parrot
this disclaimer as if it means anything,
until this process starts
getting pointed out.
Many channels will lower their own
standards to a point where 10 minutes
can go by, and nothing is said.
As long as they get their scripts out and
they tie it all together with subjectivity,
they can make content quicker and quicker,
they can cover more eye-catching subjects,
and they can have the benefit
of being bulletproof.
It allows them to get basic facts wrong,
and they don't face scrutiny,
despite the fact that they run channels that are
entirely dependent on the concept of scrutinizing art.
HelloGreedo: I cannot think of a bigger
waste of time than debating art.
Mauler: My goodness, how sad is that?
Not to mention it's completely hypocritical.
All these people do is account further
arguments created by people on their channels.
Just how good or bad something truly is,
while taking into account other arguments
that people have brought
to the conversation.
And that's on top of the fact
that they are creating art as well.
Make no mistake, video essays are
absolutely an art form.
I mean, pretty much anything
can be art anyway,
but these videos are designed to
evoke feelings in the viewer.
It's not like they are simply instructional videos telling
you how to prevent Sony Vegas from freezing
- which I actually ended up
searching for, and it worked.
They want you to feel something 
specific when they make these videos
and much of the time code can be 
spent manipulating information to do so.
That means they are open to scrutiny and it
doesn't just stop the second you say "in my opinion".
Let me give you an example: Jonathan McIntosh
created the video in defense of the Last Jedi.
He made several claims, including that
"male hatred" for the film was based on
the female characters offering advice and
helping the male characters fulfill their arcs,
despite their failings
throughout the narrative.
And from there, the angry male fans have trouble
with that because it is ingrained into them
that women don't
usually fit that role.
In order to achieve proving this theory, he
will actively ignore many facts of the narrative,
while inventing his own.
It serves to give the assessment a little
push in the direction that best suits his narrative,
but it's subtle, and so people get
sidetracked as to what point McIntoshes
feelings and the facts of the
script get mixed up.
Pop Culture Detective (McIntosh): The Last Jedi
is a movie that's designed to
subvert audience expectations.
Finn's intentions are selfish and
driven by a lack of faith.
He's convinced that the fight
against the First Order is a lost cause.
Mauler: He even uses the essay
voice throughout his videos.
Remember folks, soft-spoken, and
fragile, to sell that emotional resonance.
Regardless, he is wrong.
Finn makes it clear that he is motivated
to leave in order to save Ray's life,
because it's only a matter of time
before the ship is destroyed.
Which is true, because Holdo has
let her crew believe there is no hope.
Poe: Tell us that we have a plan!
That there's hope!
Finn: Sorry, but this fleet is doomed.
If my friend comes back to it, she's doomed too.
Gotta get this beacon far away from here,
then she'll find me and be safe.
Mauler: So, Finn choosing to save someone
by leaving is inherently selfless,
especially when considering that he
did not sign up to the Resistance,
and yet when he chooses to leave, he is abused,
captured and told to fight for this cause,
or he is a coward.
These details are part of why the
film's script is so heavily flawed.
There was an attempt to send several messages,
but they are actively at odds with the narrative
and the character progression.
I understand that these ideas and these themes
exist, but they are not effectively executed.
They contradict themselves.
Both McIntosh and Johnson have a narrative to sell
and we hold both of their scripts accountable
for their consistency, but saying
"in my opinion" doesn't suddenly mean
your video isn't
actively ignoring facts.
You are not now
immune to criticism.
This is how false narratives
are written in video essays.
They ignore counter-arguments and information
that could cause cognitive dissonance,
in order to appeal to the audience
that they've already cultivated.
They add "in my opinion" to imply that you
can't address their fabricated references at all.
But a film is finite in terms
of a source of information,
which means fact-checking video essays
based on movies is incredibly simple.
That's not to say it's impossible to defend the Last Jedi,
but to argue that the film is completely consistent
in both its own rules and the rules supplied
by its universe after an in-depth assessment
would be to lie
about the content.
The people who agreed with McIntosh
agreed before the video was released.
They vere simply waiting for a mouthpiece
to adress the film from a gendered perspective,
because it is an
agenda driven channel.
It didn't matter what he actually said, as long as it
made a comment on women's position in society.
In fact, his audience wanted more of it,
more ways of pointing out what they already
wanted to see before even
clicking the video.
The people who watch and agree, and the people
who don't watch and don't agree were both
were both doing it for the same reason
- because of the political bias in the assessement.
This is essentially
confirmation bias.
And so, this is how divides are
created, and how discourse is destroyed.
McIntosh is not alone in
the grand scale though,
his narrative is simply that of showing
gender-driven politics in media,
whether or not
it's applicable.
Downward Thrust's narrative is reporting on the
doom and destruction that is the gaming industry,
whether or not
it's applicable.
Patrick William's narrative is to undermine
the self-taught critics of YouTube, as he wants
his film studies to mean that his work
is worth more than a random dude
who just watches movies and
points out plot holes.
Essayists will forget about the
facts that ruin their narrative.
We all have a narrative, mine is trying to get to
to the logical baseline for every element in a
script under an objective writing standard, and so
I provide you references that are researched,
and my opinion is rarely relevant, because I
have to follow what is seen and heard,
and then relay that to you guys,
which is essentially Quinton's biggest mistake.
He thinks I'm sharing my opinion of the
Last Jedi when I say there are contradictions
in the script, despite referencing
many of them, and I can't blame him
because he is yet another person who
uses opinion as a shield from criticism.
But I don't.
That judgment was objective,
 supported by references.
If it is inaccurate and based on
faulty information, then please scrutinize me.
It will improve my work.
What it won't do is prompt me to say:
"it's just my opinion, leave me alone."
Interestingly, McIntosh doesn't really
use the term "opinion" either.
He is that sure of his perspective,
which in a way is respectable,
if only he would explore the people who completely
disagree to get to the bottom of the subject.
Media is extremely important to culture
and discussion across the globe.
Don't avoid it just because ignorance is bliss
and you have trouble with the idea of exploring
your own reaction
to new information.
Fortunately for us, either way, we can just
debate and discuss it regardless of these people.
We can break down any piece of art
- including their own - objectively.
And funnily enough, in a community that
subscribes to the idea of objective analysis,
you'd think there'd be
quite the echo chamber,
but it's actually less of an echo chamber than
most communities, because we all hammer out
the resources
and references.
All of us have a certain amount of information,
which will be more or less than the next person.
So we share it
and we grow.
We hold each other accountable for
the proof of the statements we make,
and of course it is completely valid to say
that you do, or do not like something.
My Discord has discussions every day that share
references to get to the bottom of a subject.
People learn there, because objectivity isn't always
easy, and anyone is capable of working with it.
It's pretty neat.
These people tend to have a
company line to follow,
where you can't say anything too
controversial if it doesn't fit the narrative.
Patrick: This is a film about space
wizards intended for children.
Meanwhile
Patrick: I think this movie is goddamn incredible.
It is easily the best Star Wars movie since
the Empire Strikes Back, and today
we're gonna talk about why.
uhhh...
Patrick: We're talking about a movie about
space wizards intended for children.
A few inches later
Patrick: I haven't stopped thinking about the Last Jedi.
And to all the people who hate it,
I wish that you could see what I see,
because it's pretty great.
Mauler: And if you don't consider an objective
standpoint to be a narrative, you might be able
to understand that it essentially
means you lack a narrative.
It's not supposed to make you feel
angry or happy, it's supposed to offer you
the chance to compare how you felt
about the craft with what happened in the craft.
And yes folks, even some of my favorite films of all
time across the universe have objective issues.
So please, take it from me, objectivity does not
have the intention of invalidating feelings,
but it can, depending on
person to person.
That part is subjective, and hey, you can
use the word "opinion" all over your analysis when
describing thoughts and feelings, but I would
try and avoid it when you're simply using it to ignore
contradictive information, just to believe
your own lie, or in some cases,
in the hopes of mixing the
objective and the subjective.
If a creator keeps telling you that it's
just their opinion, then try and imagine
why they felt the need
to keep on saying it.
Maybe they had no factual reference for
why they felt the way they did.
Maybe they wanted to manipulate someone else's
factual references without providing their own.
Maybe they misunderstood their own
subjective experience for a factual reference.
Maybe they wanted to copy and
paste the popular perspective,
but they didn't provide the factual references
that would lead to the conclusion.
Maybe they can't reach factual references because
they lack a sense of consistent argumentation.
Or perhaps they generate their own factual references
in order to wedge their own politics into media.
Or maybe they want to lie 
just enough to sell their position.
But what would tell you
the difference between these?
Well, it would be their references compared
to reality, it would be the patterns they find,
it would be how much
 information they omit.
If you don't care about proof and
you were simply looking for validation,
then yes, those videos
will work for you.
But that is a serious
problem on YouTube.
It's an admission that the video has the exact
same level of substance as someone who said
the exact opposite with conflicting references 
to the script, meaning there is no discussion,
just people shouting into a void, 
and the second it shouts back,
in comes the safety net.
Quinton Jettster: In my subjective opinion...
Mauler: In the context of discussion about art,
objectivity is the idea of explaining what happened
and how effectively it was achieved
in its craft without influence from emotion.
Subjectivity is the idea of explaining what it
made you think, and what it made you feel,
and if you can, explain why it
does that for you specifically.
Both of these offer great insight, but they need
to be separated for the sake of communication,
otherwise we'll never
understand each other.
But interestingly, mixing them together
allows people to get away with making
objectively terrible videos that
do well in terms of a view count.
Video essays were essentially a format in which
people could share research on a topic,
to help an audience understand
something large in a bite-sized format.
On the video game side, Super Bunnyhop
and Matthewmatosis were some of the pillars
that ended up fostering the creation of people
like Downward Thrust and Cleanprintsgaming.
On the movie side, you have Every Frame
a Painting and Lessons from the Screenplay,
acting as inspiration, while also giving rise to
channels like Pop Culture Detective and Just Write.
The initial channels keep on truckin
or fall by the wayside,
but these new ones have copied the style,
the voice, the editing, the titles...
Some have even found a way to clone content that 
takes weeks to make, and create daily outputs instead.
The way they do it is that
they say nothing in these videos,
or they say absolutely
inaccurate statements instead.
But on both sides of film and games, the
element they failed to copy is the writing quality,
and it's showing.
I don't know if you guys have noticed,
but the video essay crowd is getting
more and more bloated with awful content
creators, and it's giving rise to passionate creators
with standards supported by research, because
people are tired of being baited (R.I.P. Ackbar)
into a video
with no substance.
It's the reason I started making videos.
I just hated what was on the market.
Passion is dead for so many video essayists,
and it needs to change.
What was once a chance to hear from someone
who has insight into a topic has now turned into:
"let's listen to that random guy
who might have something to say,
but basically just wants to
 ramble for 10 minutes."
And it sucks.
The video essay community has essentially
become the commentary community.
That's not to say that commentary
is worthless by any means.
It is to say that video essays used to be
about research with a sense of accuracy,
all in favor of making a solid point, but now,
like the commentary community,
it is more about quickly
sharing some thoughts.
Only by comparison with video essayists
they make some things seem a lot more important
and that you need to hear it, and that's
all thanks to YouTube algorithms.
This kind of content
is encouraged.
But there are still great content creators out there,
you've just got to go look for them,
and thankfully as time goes on,
these people are being called out more and more,
so we are
getting there folks.
Though video essays are one issue,
subjective versus objective is another one.
And when you put them together, you really do
get some of the crappiest content out there.
Now, does anything I just said sound
irrefutable and simply true?
Well, it shouldn't, because I haven't figured this
all out yet, and many words come with more
than one definition.
BUT, something that is key here is that
objective does not mean irrefutable.
You can have an emotionless argument
that was built on bad information.
That is why two people who
assess objectively can still argue,
because we all have different amounts of information,
and so we will share it with each other,
and then we grow.
However, this is the bedrock of critical analysis,
and so it's a very complicated subject
that cannot be completely explained in one hour,
which is beside that fact that I am still learning.
Though this line of thinking not only
behaves as the most consistent,
it accounts for the methods
of that the other essayists employee,
and it betrays what
narrative they push.
Jonathan McIntosh: The Last Jedi is a story about
men learning to trust women's ideas and decisions,
and then becoming better people
and better heroes because of it.
It's a vital lesson that men need to
learn if we are to achieve gender equality.
Mauler: The biggest problem I face is
having false information or poor research.
The biggest problem they face is having
the viewers actually listen to their videos.
Patrick: ...you're kinda
watching movies wrong.
Mauler: Oh, there it is again.
Rags: Yeah, there it is again...
Fortism: Thank you for telling me
how to do stuff. I like that.
Rags: Good to get the confirmation that there is
a correct - or yeah, there is a correct - objectively!
There is correct and an
incorrect way to watch movies.
Not a thing that we have ever said.
This is a thing that people us that we say
and we're wrong for saying that,
but when somebody else
says it, they're correct.
Mauler: Once you spot all of the blatant contradictions
in a video essay, you'll be able to find what
the motive is behind it.
And believe me,
with the worst researched videos,
there's always a motive.
Patrick: With the movie like the Black Panther,
a review by a 25-year-old white guy
on YouTube is probably not
going to have much to offer.
Quinton: Saying that every angry gamer is
trying to be James Rolfe is like saying that
every racist gamer is
trying to be JonTron.
moviebob: Mobile games are for moms and casuals and
those people suck and I hate them for some reason
in the case of this Diablo business. It's less about
resentment at you not getting a hypothetical something,
than it is anger that a hypothetical someone that
you dislike might be getting something
and feeling good about it.
(did you catch all of that folks?)
Jonathan McIntosh: Many of these guys can't help
but view a woman who's serving as teacher
to a male hero as anything other
than preachy, annoying or emasculating.
The fact that Rose also happens to be played
by an actress of color only magnifies their anger.
Quinton: So, umm, here's the thing...
I f***ing hate Trump.
I would be a much happier person if we
found a way deport him from every
position of power that he has ever had.
(This is during a film review)
Mauler: Therefore, in conclusion,
work alot harder on your scripts.
Explore the layers that come with the definition
of the word "opinion" and how it is used.
Push the boundaries of well-crafted
content and then you won't need those
pesky disclaimers in
the first place.
Besides that, no matter how
much mud gets slung at me,
I won't just stop the objective
and subjective train.
I'm afraid I'm a big fan of research,
references, knowledge, passion and effort.
So either get on the train and argue your ideas,
or get off the damn tracks.
Now, perhaps you're wondering
why I started with this topic.
Well, in relation to Star Wars,
objective quality in the script of the Last Jedi
has opened up all the conversations
once again among many Star Wars fans.
These conversations include:
Just how well-written is the entire saga exactly?
Are the prequels actually
awful or excellent?
Are the originals actually classics,
or just average?
Is the Force Awakens a
fantastic film or not?
We already know that these questions are
a tad hyperbolic, and there are plenty of
YouTube channels and critics that
have covered the saga completely.
Mr. Plinkett: Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was
the most disappointing thing since my son.
Mauler: Plinkett sort of covered the Force Awakens,
though I guess I would say hackfraudmedia did a
more thorough job
on that one.
And hell, Plinkett can do as he wishes
when it comes to Star Wars,
but it was a voice many
people wanted to hear from.
Mr. Plinkett: So after a certain online critic
deconstructed the prequels, and explained in
reasonable terms why
most people hate them.
Someone who basically changed the way
the Internet complains about movies,
and paved the way for other youtubers
to complain endlessly about movies.
Mauler: Perhaps that is true,
but it sounds a little bitter,
especially when there are many content
creator that predate you.
Every critic has influences,
every critic has a style.
And thankfully, RedLetterMedia
actually released a video on the Last Jedi,
and despite throwing their hat in later than
many, they added plenty of substance
to the conversation, discovering even
more flaws in the Last Jedi, that many,
including myself,
didn't actually consider.
Either way, throughout these videos
you're going to see several clips pop up
from various creators with
their own ideas and patterns.
The point will be the same for this
as when I do my video game critiques;
I keep a pulse on the community that first
approached the content to see what changed.
I mean, everyone has covered
every film in the saga pretty much,
in depth, spoilers, secrets
and all things in between.
But someone hasn't
quite done that yet.
Me.
I only have the one Star Wars critique under
my belt, and I'd like that to change.
And the order in which I'll be covering
the entire saga is up for the debate,
but I think it makes sense to take a look back
at the Force Awakens as my second critique,
since the film itself pleased a hell of
a lot of people when it released,
and now, especially after several other reviews,
the quality has been brought into question,
similarly to other content in the
Star Wars saga once time passes.
Especially in this case, when we have it's
sequel to answer for so many of its setups.
It will also allow me to spread the bedrock in
preparation for an analysis of episode IX
when it releases, being that I should probably
approach the first two films in the trilogy
before summing it
up as a whole.
I am going to try my best to remain consistent
and approach every film in the franchise
with the same lens as we
progress over the coming years,
until completing an in-depth look
 into the scripts for them all.
Also, since I received a lot of
appreciation for it last time,
I won't be using harsh swear words in this series
until the Force Awakens has been fully covered.
I will signpost that change
when we come to it.
I have a few guest spots from other youtubers
that have agreed to share their perspective
on Star Wars
as we progress.
They will pop up periodically and provide how
they feel about the current state to shake it up.
That means they will say things that you
or I could very well disagree with heavily.
But it will be neat to have someone,
you know, other than me to listen to,
as we go forward.
I'm sure you guys would appreciate a break
from my voice every 100 hours...or so...
On top of that, I will be exploring many sources
of media to inform the analysis, like interviews,
production elements, first-hand accounts,
alternative reviews and other stories
told with relevant
 writing techniques.
There's going to be alot of that,
I took a long time with this one.
And man, you notice alot of patterns when
you see all this stuff in one big bunch.
Like how there's this strange
obsession with interviewers
asking the cast to make
noises and impressions.
(mating call)
- That was kind of a sexy,
sexy Chewbacca.
(more animal noises)
(The sound of Hell)
Gwendoline Christie: Is it that?
You should know, is it that?
Interviewer: It, it, it...
(please stop)
Harrison Ford: With the, with the theme of the Force,
and, and all that good stuff.
(Should've gone as a Han-burger)
*Burps*
Daisy Ridley: Ho, ho, ho...
Oh my God, I sound like Santa!
(You said it Chewie)
(lightsaber noises)
(spaceship?)
(have mercy)
Gwendoline: Is it that?
Interviewer: It's good enough.
Mauler: Anything could pop up in this series,
it's gonna be pretty mysterious.
Oscar Isaac: I have no
idea what's gonna happen.
I have no way of knowing,
it's such a mysterious thing.
It is a huge, huge movie.
It's more than a movie,
it's a phenomenon.
But I... I don't know
what to really expect.
Mauler: But once again, third party lore and
information from other shows, or comics or books
is not going to be permitted as an
explanation for weak writing in the script itself.
It is important to add that as we advance, you will
not agree with everything I'm going to conclude on.
There is always room
for more discussion.
My video should be evidence of that,
but I will make objective mistakes,
depending on whether I have researched elements
thoroughly, and I leave it to the comment section
to let me know 
where I have stumbled.
Hopefully, I can add an addendum to the
final part of the series for corrections,
if enough should rise.
I would like to say that I fully appreciate
anyone willing to share my videos,
but I would ask that you don't add the tagline:
"Mauler will prove your feelings wrong."
This isn't what I'm here to do folks, I'm here to create
an objective assessment for those who are interested
in the topic up
 for discussion.
Even if other content creators twist what my
intentions actually are for an easy sucker punch,
don't believe them and don't
propagate that sort of behavior.
That goes the same for targeted harassment 
of cast and crew members in these productions.
Unless of course you are provoked,
which can absolutely happen.
All I have to say is, try to leave them
alone and let them live their lives.
And hey, I know a vast majority of you
don't enter into either of these behaviors,
but I figure I should say it.
Be civil, and if not that,
be humble about mistakes that
we do end up making.
There are many videos that already explore
the pros and cons of Star Wars as a whole,
meaning you may hear what you've already heard before,
and many of the content creators on YouTube
and other analytical sites can be
credited as inspirational.
Links for each video I watched in prep will be
in the description, and each clip will of course
be taken from a larger context that
you are free to explore.
In any case, I have tried to provide as much
of my own content for this topic as possible,
despite being a
well-traveled subject.
As some of you guys know, I have one of those typical
histories with Star Wars for my generation,
being that I saw the first six episodes as a kid,
and the Force Awakens was the only one I viewed
for the first time as an adult.
Quite the interesting experience,
and on release TFA was the peak of discussion for
our culture, as most Star Wars movies end up being.
But we are far past release and we have a wealth of
perspectives about the film from numerous sources.
So, the purpose of this series of videos is
to assess the quality of the Force Awakens,
to analyze the film with strong reference
to it's sequel, to compare writing techniques
and quality across many mediums where relevant,
to comment on the meta surrounding the film,
and finally, to not only incorporate, but criticize
my peers in relation to the assessment of this film.
For those who think I'm here to hate the film alone,
I will extend to you the olive branch of knowing
that I really liked this film on
my first watch through,
and like many humans on this
planet, I was a little blindsided
and enjoyed the spectacle
for what it was.
Though that and where the money was made should
not be the judge of what makes a quality script.
Mark Hamill: My larger point was: it doesn't
matter if it's good, as long as it makes money.
So, because the Force Awakens made a lot
of money, I can't be, it's not "ergo, it's good".
Mauler: Either way, once the veil was lifted and
the shell-shocking nature of Disney Star Wars
films no longer worked, some people
started to really pierce through the glamour
and notice the writing
flaws on the spot.
This likely contributed to the mass
negative reaction to the Last Jedi.
Being Star Wars alone really isn't enough to
get critical praise from the masses anymore.
Many of those same people saw right
through the Force Awakens from day one.
So my goal is not nefarious, I don't wish
to stomp on Star Wars while it's down.
In fact, I do wish to celebrate the
parts of Star Wars that I really do think
are quality in the future, but for now
I want to conduct an assessment
and find what the positives and the negatives 
of this script are, and then come to a conclusion.
For those of you who are shocked that I've spent 
an excessive 5 hours on one film in my last critique,
it may behoove you to know that I created 
a 10 hour series in response to a 1 hour video
about a videogame.
Five hours is actually quick work for me, compared
to how long I would prefer a series to be.
And shockingly for Houston, Turbo, hbomb,
Folding Ideas, and many, many commenters,
and the population of the moviecirclejerk subreddit,
saying that a video is long doesn't actually
function as a
argument of quality.
You need to be more specific. Many are
 propagating a myth, and it goes like this:
"If you create a review of a film and it's longer
than a film, then it's a bad review."
This logic is literally based on nothing
 but the idea that it sounds about right.
But let me ask you this: have you ever
spoken with a friend about a scene in a film?
Just a scene, where the event takes place,
or a character takes an action.
Have you ever discussed these moments and their
structure with a friend for longer than the scene itself?
Let me make this simpler:
have you ever discussed a line of dialogue?
Walter White: I am
the one who knocks.
Ellen Ripley: Get away
from her, you bitch!
Tony Stark: I am Iron Man.
Colonel Jessup:
You can't handle the thruth!
Chigurh: What's the most you
ever lost on a coin toss?
Proprietor: Sir?
Chigurh: The most. You ever lost.
On a coin toss.
Clarice Starling: Most serial killers keep
some sort of trophy from their victims.
Hannibal Lecter: I didn't.
Clarice: No,
no you ate yours.
Snape: Always.
Gimli: Aye.
I could do that.
???: Let's go to work.
Darth Vader: I am your father.
Mauler: These moments occupy extremely small
amounts of screen time, yet you can spent hours
with friends going over everything that makes
them so powerful, because in an assessment
you are trying to break down all of the pieces
of design that work to create that very moment,
to explain the craft behind it
and why it's worth celebrating.
And on the flip side of things, it doesn't take
very long to consume something awful,
compared to how long it takes to
break down why that thing is awful.
Besides, anyone who says my videos are only filled with
the subject itself are just outwardly lying to themselves.
I go on writing tangents all the time. A more accurate
criticism would be that I go off topic too much,
but the tangent will serve to explore a writing
technique that is currently being discussed.
At least,
that is the intention.
All you need to do is have an actual citation
when you criticize someone. Is that so hard?
I have a rather large pile of references and
ultimately the title is simply what you'll be hearing
and seeing the most.
The reality is that if I were to show you the
third-party research clips alone, all in a row,
I would likely have a runtime
longer than the film already.
So again, come up with a
better criticism, this one is boring me.
Though I have no recommendations for
a circle jerk community, the whole premise is
that their hive mind dare not
be challenged, so... keep going, I guess?
All I should say is
I appreciate the free promotion.
Thank you.
Despite all of that though, my general audience
may still not be prepared to find out
that this series is going to be about 15 hours long,
cut across six videos releasing weekly.
For those who think they understand
such intellectuals like Will. I. Am. Shakesman
(note: not the real Will. I. Am.
Shakesman in the picture)
anf his famous quotes, I have something
to tell you about "Brevity is the soul of wit".
Did you think that when he said that,
everything should be a particular lenght?
If you have one story, then it should average
a certain lenght, when in a movie for example.
Yeah, that makes
enough sense. But wait!
What if you watch
two movies in a row?
Should they now be shortened
to the lenght of one?
Oh dear, it looks like what
he was saying was contextual.
The context for my work is that I have a huge amount
of research from a ridiculous number of sources
to share with you folks, and laying it all out
will take exactly as long as it takes.
Being concise isn't exactly about
being strictly short, but in a way
it's about being as short as you
can for what you are trying to achieve.
I redraft my work as I said, and I
will try and cut out as much of the repetition
or filler in the script that I can find,
leaving it to be essentially be several months worth
of work on as many sources as I could find,
crammed into 15 hours that is bite-sized
for you folks at home, so that you don't
have to watch every single video
that these things 
originally came from.
What I'm saying here is that if you have a 
criticism of the lenght of the videos,
try and be more specific, because
that alone isn't really an argument.
And besides, you have
to consider girth ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
You can pause my assessment at
any moment, and continue when you prefer.
I know I wouldn't watch it all in
one go myself, so with that knowledge,
take any full library of a youtuber
and watch it all in a row.
Combined with the concise
logic that is being used right now,
their videos would no longer
be concise, would they?
And hey, you can criticize anybody with
Mr. Shakesman now, isn't that briliant?
Either way, I am sadly not quite there,
but perhaps one day I will have a series
that is actually impossible
to watch in one day.
I have given this script 7 full redrafts,
and it is in a position I am proud of.
Redrafting is seriously
important folks, I am not kidding.
Rian Johnson: You know, invariably it's awful,
it's terrible, the first cut is like, you know...
illness-inducingly bad.
Like, always.
Mauler: Yes it is, Rian.
In conclusion, it looks like we have an attempt
to gain the same gravitas for Kylo here as Vader
during episode IV. They do it with
very specific actions being repeated,
but in the case of the "clone", it commits to
the actions without maintaining a narrative thread
to explain why the character
performs them.
This is an attempt to create emotional resonance
without maintaining the intellectual consistency
consistency of the story, which is a topic
on its own, and there is a selection of people
in this world who think intellectual
consistency doesn't matter compared to
the goal of an emotional payoff; the idea that
you should be concerned with being emotional,
instead of being concerned
with making sense.
Just Write: I'm just saying like you should be more
concerned with creating art that is emotionally
resonant, than something that
is like, intellectually satisfying.
Mauler: This is a clip from a debate that was
held between myself, Wolf and Just Write
about objectivity and subjectivity
in art on Wolf's channel.
There is a link to the full video in the description.
Many statements were made throughout,
but none were more troubling
than the one I just played.
Just Write: I'm just saying like you should be more
concerned with creating art that is emotionally
resonant, than something that
is like, intellectually satisfying.
Mauler: This was covered earlier quite
briefly in relation to Patrick Williams,
but the first mistake this statement makes is
implying that emotional resonance and intellectual
consistency are counterbalances 
to each other when telling a story,
that if something becomes more logical,
it must become less emotionally effective.
This is inaccurate, as many people would
cite intellectual consistency as the source
in which they draw
an emotional response.
Seeing a series of events play out in a
realistic manner yields more immersion for them,
making his statement confusing
as a general rule.
The second issue is that it blurs
subjectivity and objectivity, implying that
an assessment of either one
infringes on the other.
This is an attempt to make objectivity
appear as a subjective viewpoint,
when in reality objectivity can be used by
anyone, and it is beholden to no one.
It existed before i was born,
and it will continue to exist well after I'm gone,
but my subjective viewpoint, how I feel personally
about media, that begins and dies with me.
It's not hard to distinguish emotional
arguments and objective ones.
This goes the same
for assessing quality.
Interviewer: Now here's an interesting one: what's
your personal rank of the six Star Wars movies?
Oscar Isaac: I mean, I just have to go with emotion on it.
For me, number one is Return of the Jedi,
then the Empire Strikes Back,
Star Wars... and then III, II, I.
Interviewer: You put Jedi before
Empire and Star Wars?
Oscar: Yep.
Interviewer: Is that because
you grew up with it?
Oscar: I recognize that Empire Strikes
Back is a better film, but for me, I can't,
I can't divorce my emotional response to
Return of the Jedi - even the Ewoks,
everything about it is, you know, I have a very personal
connection to the memories that it elicits.
Mauler: Excellent take, Oscar.
Empire is the superior film in craft, but Jedi
has some incredible emotional payoffs,
and many saw it as their first film,
so it holds a special position in their hearts.
Objectivity and subjectivity
sit in separate fields.
There is a clear line between them,
and the objective assessment merely adds
information that can affect subjective
quality from the perspective of the viewer,
but affects all viewers
differently for every case.
Thirdly, the statement ignores the cognitive
dissonance that occurs when you view content
as flawless personally,
and flawed objectively.
That would normally offer a
great opportunity for discussion.
Instead, it's avoided.
And then, instead of pursuing introspection
about this conflict, you suddenly declare that
discussions about the measurable qualities
of art are harmful to the enjoyment of art,
admitting that the truth
is causing you discomfort.
Just Write: No, but you've reduced the
amount of enjoyment in the world, right?
Like, if my Hobbit videos actually convinced
people to dislike those films, then like, that sucks.
Mauler: Which is the crux of this discussion overall.
The truth is not something to value,
unless it makes
you feel good.
This is the same logic that we use
with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy,
assuming it would take the fun away
from children to know the truth.
We should not be using this as adults
for whether a story makes sense.
Debate and discussion
help us grow.
HelloGreedo: I cannot think of a bigger
waste of time than debating art.
Mauler: If art is meant to teach us about
life itself, while allowing us to escape,
then the more it can maintain consistency that
we recognize, the stronger immersion can become,
because our world is very much a consistent
one when it come to cause and effect.
I mean, how about we check out Just Write
in one of his videos about Game of Thrones?
But as he talks, I'm going to change the visuals 
to apply his own principles on the subject
to something else.
Just Write: The pressures of creating a serialized
story on a schedule almost invariably lead
to compromise. Logic is
usually the first victim,
and convenience
becomes commonplace.
Mauler: He is absolutely right.
As you take a story on and on, it becomes more
difficult to sit within the rules of your universe,
and the more pressure you have to create
can result in stories that ignore logic
and make strong
use of convenience.
Just Write: The problems are widespread now,
and they are eroding the empathy
we had for
these characters.
Mauler: Just Write, seen here explaining that
logical errors and conveniences are ruining
the emotional resonance
in the content.
Just Write: And yet, we go on watching
out of some sense of obligation,
bonded to it by the empathy
it hooked us with in the beginning,
blinding ourselves to the faults along the way,
because we're going somewhere, right?
There has to be some more
meaning left, right?
Mauler: Yes, that makes
alot of sense.
Hbomberguy is a firm believer
in the subjective nature of art,
yet he will tell people they are playing
a game wrong for their choice of gear,
and simultaneously refer to an error as a mistake,
while maintaining it is not objective.
Patrick Williams said there is no reason
a company would pay for reviews,
only to then share that he will see
films based on what the reviews say.
He also said that no plot holes actually matter,
only to explain that there ara
certain plot contrivances 
that do.
HelloGreedo argues that debating art is a waste
of time, yet he will engage in it regularly
both on his channel
and his Twitter feed.
Quinton Reviews will tell you there is nothing
in this world that is objectively bad
when he's talking about things he enjoys,
only to then call out bad sound design,
awful dialogue and low-quality filmmaking
in many areas of the media he covers.
Just Write will create a video highlighting
writing issues and their effect on an audience,
only to then recognize those same issues in other
media and claim the opposite effect on the audience.
Mauler: So, why didn't they use hyperdrive,
all the Star Destroyers in the fleet?
Just Write: Yeah, I dunno.
Mauler: Because, you're gonna tell me
they didn't have the fuel?
It's like ugh, why,
how are they there?
Just Write: Yeah.
Mauler: I don't know what it means when
these content creators end up providing
a counter to
their own principle.
Oftentimes the video that the principle is
stated will provide the contradiction,
but it always comes down
to a bias they fail to see,
or actively ignore to
protect the media they love.
God forbid they admit
their sacred cow is flawed.
"Hypocrisy is a noxious weed,
it should be torn out."
Though, to bring it back down, Just Write is
very capable of assessing media very effectively.
What is being highlighted here is an
emotional bias preventing an assessment
from reaching the conclusion it
would normally reach without hindrance.
All of the content creators I have given
criticism to in this very video have that issue
in select moments,
as do I.
Working to draw the line and let people
know when you are speaking from your
own experience and heart is important,
versus when you are simply stating facts.
If we keep on being vague and using
"it's just my opinion" to avoid criticism,
conversations and responses
are only going to get worse.
Growth will be stunted and media
will continue to crumble
as every IP falls prey to fast,
single-draft scripts.
Too many people become immediately defensive
and assume it's an attack on character
whenever you criticize media they enjoy,
refusing to engage in discussion.
And then, if a conversation is ever going to
take place, it starts to sound like this:
Joan: In my opinion has been
embarrasing, and that is a fact.
Leslie: No, that's your opinion,
it's the definition of an opinion.
Joan: Well, that's your opinion.
(Parks and Recreation s05e03)
Mauler: I genuinely believe many content creators
can do this by mistake, and that includes myself,
but you will find several content
creators that do this deliverately
to try and turn their audience into a weapon
 against the people they disagree with.
Oh, there's Quinton again.
That's a pretty strong claim to attach
Quinton Reviews' face to, isn't it?
On a completely unrelated note,
I have a podcast now.
It's called Every Frame
a Pause, or EFAP.
We watch video essays live and ©react
to them with a bit of commentary.
There will be a link in the description and I
recommend checking out each of the episodes
for a little bit of fun, but if you're confused,
perhaps episode 10 will answer the question
of why Quinton
keeps getting referenced.
The point is: if you're not accurate and not clear,
you can start dealing damage in many ways,
and sometimes it
can be intentional.
And when it comes to art, we can discover the
moving parts by talking it through and learning
from it when we
experience something else.
This applies to the very art that creators
like myself and Just Write make,
but to pretend that we are immune to
the very consistencies that we point out in
other people's work
is simply naive.
When telling a story, a human reaction
starts at what you saw and heard put together.
We build our connection based on
the development of the story being told,
to what we are perceiving as reality,
which is tied to its progression
and its consistency within its own
rules that it's asking us to remember,
in order to create
its own stakes.
We do not need to lie to ourselves about what
took place to make the experience better.
When events cause cognitive dissonance, it
brings many viewers away from the immersion,
thus diminishing the emotional resonance
by lack of intellectual satisfaction.
We can grow from
an experience like that.
It can leave us wondering why
we thought of it so differently before.
Or, you can scramble for any alternative
 to reconcile the writing flaw, as seen here:
Mauler: But then my follow-up question to that
would have been: "So why didn't you do it when
he held her at gunpoint and threatened
the lives of the entire ship?"
which I don't have an argument for,
 because it's absolutely ridiculous that she doesn't
do it at that point. That's the breaking
point in which you're gonna sacrifice
the entirety of the Resistance, just to prove a point
about Poe's recklessness? Are you kidding me?
Just Write: Right, maybe she's,
I don't know, like...
See, this is interesting, right?
Because... for me,
like none of that stuff
shows up in a first viewing.
¿
Mauler: Let's get hyperbolic for a second.
How in the world are you meant to feel about
Leia performing this act, when it wasn't set up,
it creates evidence for her death outside of the
danger of space, and it contradicts our universal
rules, along with the rules in the Star Wars saga.
How could anyone enjoy this,
or feel it was well presented?
How, I ask you.
How!?
Well, that is the
beauty of subjectivity.
Your feelings will always remain as valid
as they were when you first felt them.
They do not require logic or
consistent reality to be considered valid,
but they are invalid when
submitted as objective evidence.
The interesting thing about this is that
your subjective viewpoint can be affected
by the logical assessment.
Breakdowns of media will change your
mind at some point, and that's great.
- Hi, I'm commander Chris Hadfield,
astronaut, spaceship Commander, space walker.
I'm here today to hopefully
debunk some common space myths.
"You will immediately fry to a crisp by
the unadulterated solar radiation
if you get sucked
out of the airlock."
In truth, it's
way worse than that.
In the shade in space, it's like minus 250 degrees,
but the part of you that's in the Sun, it's
plus 250 degrees at least, so it's like lying on a red-hot
stove with a piece of dry ice on your back,
and your lungs are gonna be
sucked flat instantaneously.
Your blood is gonna boil, like opening a can of pop,
where suddenly all the little bubbles come out,
because there is no
air pressure around you.
You are going to freeze, boil, burn, get the bends,
and no longer be able to breathe.
Not a good way to go.
Mauler: This is why facts, reason, logic and
objective values are important to compare
to subjective values.
You get to see whether you discern a
reaction from the events taking place,
or from you interpreting the
events taking place due to a bias.
From there, you get to explore that bias, and
thus you get to explore yourself, but art can also
always be deconstructed on a technical level,
because that is precisely how its created.
George Lucas: You don't invent technology
and then figure out what to do with it.
You come up with an artistic problem,
and then you have to invent the technology
in order to accomplish it, so it's the
opposite of what most people think it is,
and any artist will tell you that.
An art on all levels is just technology.
Mauler: To ignore the technical backbone of arts
from the incredibly complex process of CGI,
down to making making marks
on a wall is to also deny reality.
To preserve that special view of art, that it is
something beautiful, mystical and it cannot be boxed,
only appreciated through spirituality in a
disconnection from the cold, hard reality
we all face,
when in reality it's both.
Denial of this fact lets people run rampant with the
idea that no comment is inaccurate or ill-advised.
People will then begin to attach connections
where there really aren't any.
Adam Driver: The world that creates is so, um,
alot of things are very unanswered, so people
have attached meaning to things
that seem to have no meaning,
and that kind of
makes it more personal.
Mauler: Once you establish reality and
compare it to your personal reaction,
you can learn far more about yourself
and what you value personally.
There is this strange myth that I don't
value personal experience ot this channel,
but that is
not the case.
Subjective assessments will always
pop up in my videos, because there are things
I like to share with you guys that I felt,
rather than something I can prove mechanically.
And that is
absolutely fine.
But you have to accept that on the scale
of subjectivity, something like the Last Jedi
could be a masterpiece,
or it could be nothing.
Everyone is different, and that is why objectivity
is a valuable baseline to be able to compare.
Iterviewer: With every movie we walk away
learning something, and in this particular one,
what is it that we
will be walking away learning?
Adam Driver: Again, I think that, sorry...
again I think that's a personal kind of thing.
For probably some, it will
be nothing. For others -
(interrupted by forced fake laughing)
(still going...)
Mauler: Yeah, you can laugh, but he's right.
Some people really don't respond to content
in one way or the other,
and what does that mean?
Well, they have the bias that takes
them out of Star Wars completely.
Perhaps it is based on trauma in your life, or
lessons that you've come to learn, or a lack of both,
but that doesn't take anything away
from the objective assessment.
They can simply admit that the facts don't
affect them in one way or the other,
and that is
absolutely fine.
Rian Johnson: I feel like I need to rewrite the
opening sequence, in terms of the big-picture stuff
of what's going on, and I freaked
out because I'm like 'this doesn't track',
you can't follow what's happening,
you can't follow what the big stakes are.
I got really scared.
Mauler: And you see, that's fine, it's only
human that you can create something that
doesn't quite make sense or it's hard to follow,
but that doesn't mean that we shoul sugarcoat it.
Let's talk about reality.
The sad fact is that the social influences,
like the many I have covered in this video,
believe that objectivity takes away
validity from subjective perspectives of art,
reducing the meaning, thus making
it a negative endeavor.
Not to say I am certain of their perspectives,
but it is what I have come to understand
from several of them,
in my opinion.
Just Write: No, but you've reduced the
amount of enjoyment in the world, right?
Like, if my Hobbit videos actually convinced
people to dislike those films, then like, that sucks.
Dishonored Wolf: Well, I don't think, when you
point out the bad things in something that you
perceive to be good, and someone's
like "oh yeah, that is kind of bad",
I think that really kind of strengthens
the enjoyment for the really good things.
Like I personally hold the Lord of the Ring movies
to be the best movies I've ever seen in my life,
and movies like the Last Jedi just kind
of enforce why I love those movies so much,
because the Last Jedi has so many problems that just
aren't even present in the Lord of the Rings films.
And so, when I see a bad movie,
and I know and understand why it's bad,
I think that helps
make the good even better.
Mauler: As Wolf just laid out, you can now
gain enjoyment from it where you previously
may not have done done, because you didn't
register the objective value within the art
that could affect
your feelings.
Thus in that instance, you increase
the enjoyment in the world overall.
This is the undeniable result of
the pursuit of evidence and reason.
We don't always like what we find, but sometimes
the facts can not only be reassuring,
they can be enlightening.
Though it is important to remember that
facts do not require that we feel they are valid.
They simply have to follow defined rules,
be it logic or standards of a craft.
So to clarify, a subjective feeling
of quality must be felt by the person
to be considered valid, and it is not
beholden to evidence or consistency whatsoever.
Emotion is the bedrock
of these assessments.
An objective fact of quality muct match
predetermined measurable criteria and definitions.
It follows rules and respects consistency,
irrespective of feelings.
Logic is the bedrock
of these assessments.
Both of these forms of analysis have standards,
and their quality is defined by the degree to which
the standard is satisfied, be it the satisfaction of
your feelings or the satisfaction of the craft.
This creates a line between
objective quality and subjective quality,
while showing how objectivity
can affect subjectivity,
but that we shouldn't shy away from it
out of fear of losing enjoyment.
We should embrace it, as the 
truth isn't designed to hurt you,
it is meant to act as an
offer to learn and grow.
George Lucas: I would like to see our society mature,
and become more rational and more knowledge-based,
less emotion-based. Um, I would like to see
education play a larger role in our daily lives,
and um... you know, have people that
come to a larger understanding,
the bigger picture understanding of how we fit
into the world and how we fit into the universe...
not necessarily thinking of ourselves,
but thinking of other.
Mauler: Too right George.
Think what you will of the man, but improving
critical thinking through the education system
is not an idea that
many would disagree with.
When it comes to facts about media or life itself,
there are instances in which the truth will do
massive harm and have zero benefits, 
and thus we refrain from sharing the truth
and we label it
a white lie.
There should be an important
takeaway from that statement.
Just Write: No, but you've reduced the
amount of enjoyment in the world, right?
Mauler: To prevent a loss of enjoyment by
avoiding the assessment would be a lie,
and since I don't actually intend on
sacrificing my integrity, I won't accept a lie.
Life and art don't become meaningless
by understanding the facts behind them,
or to understand
a bias about yourself.
Timmy thought that the Sun was an alien,
and at night the alien goes to sleep.
He later found out the facts, and
that perspective is now completely changed.
The facts exist, and you can feel as you
do in support of them, or regardless of them,
just don't be so stubborn as to assume that
what you felt happened is what actually happened.
Rewatch, redraft and explore
more than just how you felt.
Rian Johnson: ...and it can be sort of like that
thing when you saw a movie a long time ago,
and you remember a scene one way,
but then you watch it again and you're like:
"oh, that's completely different
 than I thought it was".
Mauler: Thank you Rian,
that was bang on the money.
But yeah, it all comes under the difference
between arguing from emotion,
or arguing from references
and confirmable facts.
