EFAP - The Expanded Universe - Wolf and MauLer VS. Just Write

[@EveryFrameAPause]

Hey folks, this is a debate that took place around two years ago now and ended up being one of the many streams that led to EFAP. Wolf and I discuss some things with good ol' Mr. Write. The original video is much longer, this has been edited down for pacing and entertainment while cutting out the video watching portions. Enjoy folks! :)

[@apache5971]

Didn't he contradict some of the things he said in this video almost immediately afterwards?

[@eaglebearer]

This was essentially the proto EFAP. Thanks for uploading it, we miss Wolf.

[@raam726]

How many times will you reupload this lol Anyway, Continue critique of the force awakens Critique game of thrones s8e6 Continue batwoman live review Critique rogue one

[@gaeloconnor707]

Awesome, missed this. Would love to see an efap on Ralph the movie makers joker take. Sorry I’m mixing praise with this request but I’d really love to hear your opinion on his video. Thanks. Love you guys ❤️❤️

[@raam726]

@@gaeloconnor707 lemme guess. He didn't like it. Lol

[@teamozOFFICIAL]

Right.. *chuckles nervously* But the thing is.. like.. *more nervous chuckles* I don't necessarily.. think.. *hehe* Art is... *hehe* subjective.. *hehe* ..Only.. *HEHE*

[@aTalkingKoala8294]

Lmfao i read that in his video essay voice

[@MrCantStopTheRobot]

He chuckles to drown out his internal monologue of "OH FUG OH FUG OH FUG."

[@BigOleHammer]

I just commented on this before I read further down lol.

[@lordinquisitordunn336]

Yeah he can’t think of any way to justify his drivel

[@SETHthegodofchaos]

@@MrCantStopTheRobot Cognitive Dissonance kicking in. Too bad he sticked with what he believed.

[@OblivionCairn]

Hope Wolf is well, wherever he is.

[@turtleanton6539]

Co-sign

[@bencheevers6693]

I do too, I just wrote this and left it as a comment but I'm gonna reply to you because I really hope he sees it as I hope he'll read your thread: Fuck Wolf needs to let go of the tumultuous emotional roller coaster he's on and get a different perspective, nothing is that bad and nothing is that good, it's like he's stuck in the adolescent phase of life where everything seems like end of the world and you become addicted to the turmoil in your own life, the truth is your not special or important and because of that things aren't that bad. I'm not saying anything negative about Wolf specifically, I love the guy and want him to do better and I want him to come back, what I wrote above is true of 99.9% of people. I wish he would just take a step back and let go this idea that all or nothing approaches are the only way to solve insurmountable problems which are objectively just meh level issues. A lot of suicidal people fall into this mentality as well, they think their world is over and whatever crisis they're currently experiencing is the worst thing ever when usually, objectively it's really not a big deal especially compared to what people suffering in the world endure, I'm talking child sex slaves, slaves in the third world, living in extreme poverty, extreme sickness, starvation or every part of living in a state like North Korea or the USSR. We live in the first world, have opportunity, have a better standard of living than kings of the past did, I'm not saying his problems or your problems or my problems don't matter, they certainly do, my point is that we have the time and circumstances available to us in order to work on them. Edit: My point is making giant life changing proclamations just feeds into the delusion that your issues actually warrant severe changes, it's almost a selfish desire to want a problem so totally inescapable that it requires these steps because that validates how hard your life has been. I'm not saying your life hasn't been hard, that doesn't mean it isn't fixable, especially because you aren't tethered to your past bad experiences, you don't have to carry them along with you, just let go.

[@BananaMana69]

Wolf will be back.

[@arminiuschieftainofthecher2780]

Silo 101 I don’t think so. The first time he left was very spontaneous, this time it seemed far more deliberate. I wish you were right to some extent, but I don’t think you are.

[@freddykingofturtles]

He's still in contact with Mauler and Rags, they'll keep a toxic eye out for his well being.

[@ZachSeineVideos]

Mauler: "I think Last Jedi should be used in universities how fundamentally broken a film can get from a script." The spiders told him.

[@draakgast]

the web has spoken

[@mysterymastermind175]

Did it actually get used like that

[@metumortis6323]

@@mysterymastermind175 sort of. A couple people said that they are going to use it as an example of bad movie writing.

[@whitehorsedown6499]

You haven't Evolved yet bro. Probably the most hilariously pretentious thing I have ever heard and I like Terrence Mallick.

[@thereviewersblock7459]

ZachSeineVideos Ah Yes, Just as the Spiders Foretold.

[@lorddolamite6141]

"I've evolved as a critic"- Jusiseadus Writaggins.

[@woodwyrm]

This isn't even MY FINAL FORM!

[@lorddolamite6141]

@@woodwyrm I HAVE REJECTED MY OBJECTIVITY!

[@daddydog9275]

Yeah I’m glad Wolf brought that up. I liked those Hobbit videos too and then he liked TLJ I got confused as fuck.

[@necr0danc3r29]

"A person evolves when they defeat their weaker self. Wouldn't you agree, Wolf" -Just Wriavolo

[@srj34]

More like "Just Right?"

[@axson8]

Mauler has clearly gotten a better Mic since this debate. He has Evolved a critic.

[@turtleanton6539]

But have you evolved as a wiever?

[@freddykingofturtles]

@@turtleanton6539 "The Long Side is a path to many abilities, some may consider to be... unnatural" -Creambo Sheevins

[@monke9326]

Uncle Baneman hes mic still sounds like that. the audio we hear on efap is from OBS not discord

[@ooochoa]

That is subjective.

[@SouthpawLP]

Okay, but if you look at it through Evolved Response Theory...

[@EmanGameplay]

Sorry, I ain't evolved as a critic yet.

[@dimas3829]

man, watch the end of his worthless skywalker's take - he sold out themes for skillshare, literally.

[@robertlewis6915]

I don't believe in evolution, so nough.

[@raymond-reviews]

As much as I dislike Just Write’s character, I at least respect him for talking with MauLer and Wolf. Unlike some other Film Critics, *cough* Quinton, Jenny Nicholson, and Patrick Willems *cough*

[@lorddolamite6141]

Theennnnn he walks it back when he tried to tell DXFan not to come on in a dm like a sneaky little weasel.

[@raymond-reviews]

Fran Madaraki That’s why I don’t like his character. He’s a weasel, but at least he had the balls to come along once.

[@filipstellberg8280]

Or MacIntosh.

[@lorddolamite6141]

@@raymond-reviews "Had" being the key word. So sayeth Bigideas.

[@YourPrivateNightmare]

not even being a dick, but Jenny doesn't really qualify as a critic. She's really just a variety KZbinr who gives her 2 cents about media she comes across and feels passionate enough about. She doesn't really come off that really cares enough about her own takes to really debate them. She just throws out her feelings and then moves on, which, I feel, is something that can at least be respected. Quinton and Willems on the other hand are spineless worms.

[@southwardfaun9008]

At the end of the video: "so this is running a little long..." Oh you poor sweet child you have no idea what the future holds.

[@edmonddantes563]

This is an efap mini at best

[@TheGamingKiller242]

@@edmonddantes563 this is a cut down version though.

[@HugoGojibiter]

Do you know how long the original video was? Because if not then this comment is pretty stupid

[@edmonddantes563]

Hugø Gøjibiter irønfist bro we’re joking relax

[@HugoGojibiter]

Sean Tracey sure, but even jokes require some semblance of logic you know. It’s not a big deal I know, but it bothered me

[@crimsonpotemkin]

"Back up your position" "Come up with evidence" That's rich, coming from a guy who relies on interpreting everything as loosely as possible and tying everything to arbitrary muh theeemes that would support his points.

[@smugalice6206]

And Mr. “Most people don’t know what a Y-Wing is.”

[@Muck006]

Nah ... he doesnt "interpret" anything ... he only "judges by EMOTIONS" ("if you felt good it is a good movie") which is stupid, because if you watch the movie again after having a bad day, the experience will be completely different!

[@aidanmattys7488]

Something I noticed a lot is that for almost every single point, Mauler and Wolf used examples as evidence to back those points up. Just write rarely did. It seemed to be the difference between a dreamer throwing concepts around and a person trying to drag someone back into reality. Just write came up with a few interesting points, but it seems his views on interpretation does not just stop at viewing movies. It is also something he takes on during discussions It is also usually a sign of speaking out of their ass

[@dodojesus4529]

@@Muck006 i love how you just came up with the perfect double speak fr interpret

[@pubcle]

Thing is, themes are actually very important & good. They're the core meaning. To explain my perspective, all art is some form of human communication with additional characterization. If you try to communicate but you have no meaning to the words you are saying it's gibberish. If you try to communicate & just speak in sounds with no attempt to actually format your sentences, that's also gibberish. You can't write without themes, but you also can't write with only themes. You have to have themes, things you intend to say, then you have to effectively communicate them in an artful, characterized way.

[@Neo2266.]

They sometimes ask “where is wolf” ...but thank god mostly “how is wolf”

[@sernoddicusthegallant6986]

I'l do you one better *why* is wolf!?

[@sirkuchen1501]

*who* is wolf?

[@fin3line705]

What is wolf?

[@sirkuchen1501]

Fin3 line Wolf also was a youtuber. He made Videos about games, movies etc. just like Mauler. So his channel was practically like Maulers.

[@fin3line705]

SirKuchen I know who wolf is I was just adding to the joke

[@TsunTzu]

That "evolving as a critic" line is still just so...so perfect. The sheer, lowkey condescension. It's fantastic.

[@ETBrooD]

And his claim to substance also reeks of condescension.

[@ergoth154]

@Oof Oof Ralph's Joker review can't even be parodied it was so bad haha. I actually thought he was doing a bit and then the video ended lol

[@devynd6476]

Oof Oof I still can’t believe that video is not sarcasm. It’s just so dog shit. There’s no way it’s legitimate with how awful it is.

[@thinkwithurdipstick]

He’s a Lit major, being a pretentious douche is in his nature

[@lordinquisitordunn336]

Enforcer I watched jlongbones response and my thought was this abysmally immature child makes hitop films look like Aragorn

[@Longshanks1690]

It’s a shame what happened to JW over Rise of The Tism. Maybe one day he’ll use Reader Response Theory to evolve as a critic and appreciate the themes that movie offers.

[@anilin6353]

Reader response is the theory of what media is successful.

[@SuperCaelum]

Did you watch his video? I only saw thumbnail with "bad writing" and howled with laughter. I'm almost curious enough to watch his video to see how he suddenly contradicts himself and his "reader response theory".

[@jerm70]

We should have JustWrite vs JustWrite

[@monder1060]

@@jerm70 something like Jordan Peterson vs Peter Jordanson

[@massivetism]

Does Just Write not understand that his TROS video is going to reduce the amount of enjoyment in the world? That really, really sucks man. What a Jeb-pilled nazi maniac

[@electricbayonet2]

I still remember from the original video how Mauler/Wolf actually sounded a bit flustered upon learning that JW wanted to talk to them...and then the actual debate began, and it became comically clear that the image of him they had built up from his 'Hobbit' videos sure wasn't the limp fish they were talking to.

[@BrennanCh06]

Yeah, it became clear *very* quickly how outgunned JW was, and they weren't even being dicks, just intellectually rigorous.

[@gmonkman]

@@BrennanCh06 I didn't get that. I thought all 3 handled it respectfully and well.

[@Goblin_Hands]

@@gmonkman He couldn't even begin the debate because he's too "evolved" as a critic. The movie is good because he says so. And bad movies cannot exist unless he devolves into a lesser version of himself...he has obtained God status in which anything he deems worthy is untouchable.

[@isakaldazwulfazizsunus7564]

​@@BrennanCh06 his subjectivism borders on willing ignorance it's infuriating

[@TheOneAverageJoe]

​@@gmonkmanthey were all respectful but jw kept going in circles the whole time basically sidestepping every point mauler and wolf gave and going back to "but I liked it so it's not bad"

[@reidzalewski4563]

23:50 JustWrite: "No Robots make art, art is made by people." That ages like a fine wine.

[@janehrahan5116]

Hes still right... for now at least, ai can at the moment only regurgitate garbage in terms of narrative or even drawings, it pales in comparison to anything remotely good in the human sphere. The issue is that mass entertainment has been so declined for so long that garbage is preferable.

[@reidzalewski4563]

@@janehrahan5116 For the moment yeah, but I can't imagine how things will go the next few years. These AI are effectively in their infancy, and many of them are already seeing commercial use, and that's before we even realize that if we have access to ours, whomever has connections is going to have something FAR better.

[@madkingnarfi]

I have never made a more audible noise from reading a comment before.

[@Unknown-hb3id]

@@janehrahan5116 Let's be fair. Some of the AI drawing regurgitation has been pretty impressive, but I agree on all other points. Though I do see it getting to a pretty ominous point in the (relatively) near future with the rate we're at.

[@sabersight908]

his channel doesn't even have a single video all these years on the topic of AI art xD that is kinda funny tbf i know tons of artist that said the same just before it blew up and some of them have gone into silence on the topic, but most of them actually the opposite and like to intrigue the idea and the future of it, but the topic of the robot in this conversation is the meaning of factual objectivity so it is not really the same

[@RebornVengeancex]

4 Norse god, 1 Roman god, and 2 astronomical bodies walk into a bar The bartender says " Oh, this is a gonna be a week joke"

[@kalesheonn8366]

The Insatiable Mr. Dong that was funny

[@SpaghettiGod34]

The Insatiable Mr. Dong I don’t understand the joke but I believe you deserve a thumbs up anyway

[@johannesseyfried7933]

@@SpaghettiGod34 Don't worry, I didn't get it either.

[@exhumedlegume8870]

@@SpaghettiGod34 Sunday and Monday are named for the Sun and Moon, respectively (astronomical bodies), Saturday is named for Saturn, as is the planet (Roman god), and Tuesday through Friday are named for Tyr, Odin/Wotan, Thor and Frigg (Norse gods).

[@SpaghettiGod34]

Exhumed Legume thank you very much it’s appreciated

[@Biostasis5x7]

"None of that shows up on a first viewing." I only watched TLJ once, I left the theatre angry. It's one of the only times I've left a movie viewing feeling angry and frustrated. These issues do show up on a first viewing. Maybe you are just too slow to notice what's on the screen, eh Just Write? Just write just devolves this entire conversation into subjectivity. Which is completely useless to spend time on. It's like talking with a five year old about why they like cookies. They like them because they like them. That's it. It's a useless expenditure of time.

[@defeqel6537]

It's the only time I've been in a theater and would have walked out if I wasn't there with my friends, and I've seen a lot of stinkers too. And yeah, the movie made me angry and frustrated, it was just a constant downhill apart from a few nice looking (CGI) scenes. edit: and yeah, I recognized the "themes" in the movie right away, but they came at expense of plot and characters, and were shoddily done in general from what I recall

[@shadnida]

@@defeqel6537 Same here. I felt something was off as soon as Po and Hux started conversing. Then there was a your mom joke and I thought meh maybe it's just one bad joke. Then after Luke comically chucked his father's lightsaber I knew in my heart of hearts something was horribly wrong and it only got worse from there.

[@jtomos]

I remember I was laughing my ass off. From a fan point of view it was all for the wrong reason. Probably crying or being angry would have been a better reaction, but I only could laugh at it. First I was only amused how RJ flipped the bird at JJ, then how he was methodically destroying everything. I remember laughing out loud at the Holdo-maneuver - the whole cinema went dead silence: but me and an other guy some 2-3 rows away were laughing, I don't know his reason but I knew that it broke every serious space space battle. The fun part is that I understood what RJ was trying to say, and even I'm not opposing it til today, however he did a terrible job of it. His obsession with the divisive storytelling, the shitting on the established rules of the universe, the shitting on OT characters, the de facto poor storytelling and bad execution broke SW.

[@Goblin_Hands]

I think many of us have seen the movie only once and memorized almost everything bad as if we just saw it yesterday even though it was over 2 years ago. We wanted it to be good but every scene disappointed us, whereas casual fans (people that probably don't remember much about the others) saw it, and thought "Oh yeah, it had emotion and theme instead of just a Millenium Falcon blowing up tie fighters - Good movie".

[@ARC--5973]

I remember that I left the theater smiling, but knowing deep down that something was seriously wrong. On my second viewing, all the visuals had gotten old, and all of a sudden I found myself hating a Star Wars film. Something I never thought would happen.

[@PCFROMVCS]

Can I just say, I love how cordial this conversation is? For some reason people paint you guys as aggressors foaming at the mouth, but JW was given so much room to calmly explain himself and his points. Hearing his train of thought is super valuable to understanding how other people critique art

[@bashamd96]

They get painted that way because he's against them on certain things being good so they gotta try and paint him as this super evil creature that only wants to shut down conversation with people

[@dragoneye6229]

That's how socialism do. Seriously though, nothing exists in a vacuum, especially human behavior. Doing this with politics only builds the habit of doing it for other things. Much like being lazy with your chores leads you to eventually being lazy with work. Humans are ruled by habit, building good habits and purging bad habits is key to being happy and living a productive life. Thinking that you can build a habit and not have it intrude upon every action you take is naive. This is why ideas like socialism will never work. It harbors the thought that we should embrace bad things and see them as good when reality simply doesn't work that way. Laziness will never be good. Pedophilia will never be good. Rape will never be good. Instead it creates monsters of out of men who are taught that embracing their evils is the same as accepting them, this is untrue.

[@LeaXoftheUnderworld2]

Didn’t Just Write later warm DX (the guy who said words only have one definition) on Twitter not to go on EFAP?

[@bashamd96]

@@LeaXoftheUnderworld2 He publicly told DX not to then tried in DMs after deleting the tweet cause he remembered what backlash is

[@Soridan]

It's the natural evolution of "Bobby is a meanie poopoohead for not liking my doll's dresses". Now Robert is a nazi womanhater for disliking a movie.

[@SlyCooperJr]

"Evolving as a critic"... it's been a long time since I've heard those words spoken out of Just Write. This will be a good refresher.

[@dusky5535]

James Moore A return to the old days

[@davejones9469]

(Pokemon music) Just Write evolved into: Garbage!

[@ZeroRaider]

Ah, I sometimes forget EFAP had a prequel trilogy.

[@self3x851]

God I miss Wolf. Glad to get this reuploaded so it's like hes back for a minute

[@quentondaniels8536]

anonamister - likewise, sadly missed

[@YourPrivateNightmare]

noone's ever really gone but seriously, he's better off away from YT

[@talmiz101]

@@YourPrivateNightmare when is he dead or what? i never got the full story of where he is now

[@mattbyrne1329]

@@talmiz101 he left the internet

[@talmiz101]

@@mattbyrne1329 its a shame, because he was a nice and fun guy.

[@winkles2314]

“None of that shows up in a first viewing.” Nope. Lots of it does, especially the big, movie torpedoing issues.

[@SETHthegodofchaos]

I still fail to see how that even is a good argument? It might be if one avocates for the initial experience and (emotional) reaction, but is that all there is to it? Is what we initially feel the only truth that we need to protect and nurture? I can only imagine someone insecure saying that to justify ones own feelings without having to feel bad when it gets questioned and criticised. If that is their get-out-of-anything card then they might just dont care enough. And that would be fine if they aknowledge that, but they dont. They instead double down in barely thought out ways. I dont even think they are able to comprehend how skilled someone can be in anything. And may it be in following plot, characters motivations and spotting inconsistencies in a story/movie...

[@choueriito2548]

@@SETHthegodofchaos Not only that, but the same thing can be said in reverse. What if you don't notice something on the first viewing that would raise the quality of the film when analysing it a second time around? Almost all the films or shows I consider good became far better upon multiple viewings that help you notice foreshadowing, subtleties, etc. Should we just limit what good we perceive in a film to the first viewing as this argument proposes we do with the bad? The fools who actually use the argument of "you wouldn't notice it on the first viewing/if looking for faults" can't have their "logic" without it going both ways.

[@SETHthegodofchaos]

@@choueriito2548 Oh definitly, I completely agree! MauLer actually opened my eyes to consistent character writing. Before I mostly focused on story consistency in the past. It made me rewatch many movies and series with new insights that made them even more enjoyable to me. I wonder what makes people like Just Write come to their conclusions. Did they think in the past they had to spot all the details and connections on the first viewing perfectly and because they always failed they basically gave up? Were they perfectionist who had enough of being perfectionists and this was their way out? Or is it really just all about "deminishing enjoyment"? I guess not, because if that would be the main reason, then Wolf's explanation that one can enjoy good movies more once you know what to look out for would diminish that reason a lot. Or maybe they just got sick of putting in a lot of effort when they could just make content about anything with less effort.

[@choueriito2548]

@@SETHthegodofchaos I think Just Write's case is a lot more simple than all that. He liked TLJ and wasn't able to admit it was bad. On the flipside, something like the Hobbit trilogy is something he went into not liking. He simply can't separate logic from emotion.

[@s13gouf60]

Not seeing a massive problem in the script the first time you view a film just implies YOU are slow. I still find it funny when people use such a defense.

[@alexhayden219]

JW: See, this is interesting, right, because for meeee, none of that stuff shows up in a first viewing... So, what he is saying is he doesn't pay attention to what's happening in a story. As long as there's smart sounding sound bytes, he just accepts that what they're saying and what is happening is fine. It doesn't matter if it makes sense. The "art" of what those hollow, unconvincing moments taken individually and not as a whole story makes him feel is what matters. While you're not paying attention on your first viewing and your mind is wondering to how pretentious your English lit courses make you feel, you might also consider that in literature you are expected to redraft and edit. If they did that on this film, they did a poor job of it. I hope that you only watch it once, because none of that stuff shows up in a first viewing, but if it doesn't show up in the second or twenty second viewing, there's something malfunctioning in your brain. JW: Most of the audience won't notice most of the time. You just threw out your English lit supremacy and admitted that you're a part of the dumbed down masses.

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

NO he just said what he said - the plot gaps did not strike him as particularly problematic. I agree. No one thinks Finn and Rose going to Canto is a "plot hole" - its the whole atmosphere that they don't like. I agree Canto has issues - but not the ones Mauler brings up. Its not a plot problem - just a tonal shift that throws most people. Justwrite loves Rose. I like her just fine. So we're back to subjectivity - some people enjoy Canto most dont. I'm in the middle but if your issues is just Canto existing then "plot holes" will emerge - not real ones but ones you conjure to rationalize not liking x or y.

[@kamakazines4901]

Miss Wolf 💔 10 minutes in and the circular avoidance to pin ANYTHING down is so frustrating that it's giving me a headache. My respect to Mauler and Wolf for making it though this!! 'I can like a thing despite its faults, if I think it has a strong message' - that is what you are trying to say, dude, and that is fine, I can too, but that doesn't erase the faults!!! And in TLJ, there are a LOT of them, and they break the messages the film is trying to portray. EDIT: 1 more minute in, and he's misunderstanding objectivity vs subjectivity... 'it's subjective, because counter arguements can me made' oh, no...

[@rall172]

I think this guy straight up belives objectivity doesn't exist. People like that scare me, because there are so many of them around nowadays. I meen he even said it: at 50:45 Mauler: "What do you think is the "robots" perspective?" JR: "I don't agree the robot exists." Me in that moment: 🤨😐😑😶😔.....

[@Forkinpikey]

It's postmodernist deconstructivism. Reality is just what I make it and I'm intentionally going to go against the tide of what I perceive as the presiding authority/reality. It is horrifying. We will be seeing more of this in the coming decade. Muh feelings over actual observable scientifically verifiable reality

[@rall172]

@@Forkinpikey Agreed. But you don't even have to go as far as "observable scientifically verifiable reality", people like JR fail at even the most basic thing called LOGIC. I am legit scared about the future with people like that around. Some time back people survived because of fisical strength (physical and mental) and or being inteligent (or both), but nowadays we have people that don't have neither strength nor inteligence. And the biggest issiue with that is that we have plenty of this kind of people in leading positions that REQUIRE those skills. I don't consider myself religious, but at this point I can only say: Only God knows were we are gonna end up.

[@lordinquisitordunn336]

Yeah if the counter argument does not line up with reality of what happened the argument is invalid. The movie exists in front of us and is finite it’s not constantly changing bad writing is bad writing

[@MrCantStopTheRobot]

His uncomfortable little squirmy grunts... He can't come out and say, "that's a good point" or "huh, ya got me there." He's weaseling to preserve his increasingly beautiful illusion.

[@spenser9908]

He’s so adamant about not even finding common ground. It’s so lame.

[@TheGamingKiller242]

People seem to not understand the concept of not having to refute everything. You can be wrong about things. It doesn't ruin the debate, no one's going to kick you out. And based on the fact no one's being aggresive here, they're actually trying to help.

[@beo3627]

he says 'this is so funny' 'thats so funny' whenever he gets got or stumped, like halfway through he says it like 4-5 times already

[@MikeImprixis]

I do teach English and writing and one of the first things I tell students is when analyzing a story, a poem, or anything literary, you have to prove your thesis by using concrete examples from the work. Enjoying the work is a bonus but not necessary in discussing the work. This is why, on some level, a story has to make sense. A story that has plot holes or bad character motivations obscures the themes that the author is trying to relate through the story. The robot Mauler employs in his analysis is basically the human mind's capacity to make sense of incoming stimuli. TLJ may have had good themes but you question what they ultimately are because the plot and characters make no sense. A good author or storyteller is just as knowledgable of how they want to say something as they are of what they want to say.

[@mourad505]

Man, you've got to give Mauler serious credit here. It must be so frustrating to thoroughly lay out, over the course of an hour, that emotions and logic aren't completely divorced from one another. All that to be countered with "Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man..."

[@darthdragonborn1552]

What are you a fucking park ranger now?

[@mourad505]

@@darthdragonborn1552 "Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules?!" * Mauler, while trying to understand the "Holdo Maneuver" *

[@SilentDeterrent]

Now we need the IHE chat and we will have the full trilogy.

[@shawnm1902]

But what about the extended universe?

[@SilentDeterrent]

Eaxl The Not So Great Debate

[@choueriito2548]

@@metalheadretrogamer5330 Pretty sure in one of the recent EFAPs that MauLer said IHE was now fine with it being made public.

[@LeaXoftheUnderworld2]

Greg Rothschilds maybe after they show the more recent conversation between Mauler and IHE on EFAP.

[@lessalazar9068]

I've been waiting so long for that to be released.

[@cleanserofnoobs4162]

I recently watches Just Write's Hobbit videos and I couldn't believe how good they are. God, how did he "evolve" to what he is now?

[@booperdee2]

Hobbit was released in 2012-2014, little bit before all this culture war/SJW stuff kicked off... i dunno... probably just... coincidence....

[@Longshanks1690]

@CleanserOfNoobs Quite simple really; He liked TLJ, he hated The Hobbit, and he’s so pompous, he can’t admit he liked something bad, as that would be to admit he has bad taste, so he has to rationalise it in any way that he can.

[@filiporvik2782]

He bought a new book after those.

[@S4ns]

He liked the Last Jedi but didn't want to admit any of it's flaws so he outright ignored them. It's fine to like a movie, but don't tell me that obvious flaws shouldn't bother me or that a movie with glaring problems is "good".

[@teddyharvester]

The brand, man. Must protect the brand. Also, probably overdosed on all the subversion.

[@ashkebora7262]

Evolving as a critic: Denying the existence of objectivity because people _feel_ things. Also, fiction means _anything_ can happen, so deal with it. No in-universe sense making necessary.

[@ReaLMoisan]

I hate that people seem to think being objective and analytical ruins movies, I disagree wholeheartedly. Sure it ruins bad movies, but it lets you appreciate great movies even more. Now you can recognize the effort, craft, and artistry that went into making an impeccable film. By disregarding everything that can make movies bad, you're doing a disservice to great movies that do everything right. It's really disrespectful to those people who take pride in their craft, and have the skill and intellect to create exceptional films.

[@whade62000]

Feynman said something similar about science He said he doesn't understand people who think understanding how a flower works is at odds with appreciating its beauty, from an artistic view as now being able to appreciate the details, the design, has deepened your aporeciation and sense of wonder, it only adds, never takes away

[@krat2242]

Agree with u totally, Would also be a disservice to Literature and other art forms. Even a painting can be objectively bad, once you see how a script/novel/painting get crafted over hundreds of hours, with tedious work to make sure its sound, I can't go back and say: "yeah my fingerpainting from when I was 5 is on par with the Mona LIsa because I feel like it is".

[@amanibob1416]

"Tism... Tism everywhere and not a drop of rhino milk to drink!" Bilbo Baggins

[@TheJibbajabba12]

Yeah, I watched this guy the other day on his critique on The rise of Skywalker and he had me sold until he mentioned how great he thought the last Jedi was, and then I was like . . . " I remember this guy ! ".

[@jimsaintruth4248]

And then he gushed over Rose Tico and everything fell back into place

[@arte0021]

Yeah. After he said it i immediately left the video

[@Longshanks1690]

@Jim Saint Ruth _Perfectly balanced; as all things should be._

[@thinkwithurdipstick]

Jim Saint Ruth people like JW like Tico just because she’s an asian woman in star wars, irrespective of the quality of the character. That’s just as bad as disliking her solely for the same reason

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

@@jimsaintruth4248 So he says stuff you don't like and he's wrong ... wow how Naz--- sorry Maulerish of you.

[@maxoutrage7270]

Just Write has more awkward laughs than cogent points.

[@maverickay5807]

Nah

[@TheShadowOfHumanity]

@@maverickay5807 True as that would imply he even made one cogent point which he clearly didn't.

[@Forkinpikey]

@Lewa105 just right

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

You say that and don't criticize Mauler - fail!

[@addison_v_ertisement1678]

​@@darkthorpocomicknight7891What are they supposed to critique?

[@necromancer7676]

Their powers have doubled since the last time they met Count

[@carlosdeleon7755]

Heisenbrrg lmao

[@zachgilbert3815]

Twice the Massives, double the tism!!

[@Party_Almsivi]

“So, my background is, I come out of English Literature, right?” God he sounds so up his own arse.

[@diegodankquixote-wry3242]

Just Write was born from English literature. He was a fetus growing inside a copy of moby dick

[@johnathonjohnston1598]

Deigo Quixotwry He's basically the anakin of literature is what you're saying

[@johannesseyfried7933]

@@diegodankquixote-wry3242 Probably left over Sprinkles from a Donut he ate while reading.

[@Kwistoweeish]

I think it’s fair to let someone know where you’re coming from. Knowing he has that background rather than a film background clarifies how he arrived at his position. It’s a terrible position though, because essentially he doesn’t care about quality...

[@krishenjalali3266]

As an English Lit major myself it's painful to hear that line dropped by every one of these critics. Themes and interpretation of subjective qualities are one matter; objective analysis is quite another. The two should always be acknowledged separately. People trot this line out as if it's an excuse to not acknowledge objective qualities.

[@solarsailer4166]

"The truth will lie on wait for all time." JWs thinking is the heart of why people won't understand this world from election results to Climate Change to vaccines. This video never gets old.

[@dragoneye6229]

I enjoy The Room. It's fun and hilarious to watch because it's so bad it's bad. It is not a good movie though and there are MANY problems in it's writing. For example the flower shop scene. Her favorite customer but she doesn't know who he is? What?

[@odinsrensen7460]

@@dragoneye6229 Maybe she inevitably learns to hate everyone she gets to know, so she deliberately keeps herself from getting to know her favorite customer. It's a deep movie, tbqh.

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

Yup JW created the virus - makes sense

[@TheCrimsonWave]

@@darkthorpocomicknight7891 god you're delusional

[@Jamesgates355]

@@TheCrimsonWave and you missed a joke...

[@bloodysimile4893]

I remember when writers treat children as an intelligent being. Able to tell good stories that make sense that add good emotion weight, like Avatar the Last Airbender.

[@lampad4549]

Well mauler gave it 4/10 for objectivity so get fucked.

[@raphaelambrosiuscostco]

mel on Damn bro.

[@addison_v_ertisement1678]

And like Over the Garden Wall.

[@wesspect]

so much of my intelligence, especially social and emotional intelligence (I don’t have much but I’m pretty sure there’s some) came from growing up obsessively watching tv and movies in the early 2000’s Theres still good stuff out there now and there was definitely garbage back then too, but I feel awful for kids growing up now with so much brainrot being shoved at them

[@icecell]

"The perspective you're advocating for would just make for really boring art" And here you just insulted everyone's intelligence. How dare you say in definite terms that a well-crafted art is boring. Hell, by your standards, you can't say that it'll be boring because according to you, basically everything is subjective. This guy reminds me of people who shun classical paintings and find them "boring", while simultaneously praising contemporary "art" by artists with questionable skill. Edit: 26:17 Ah, so basically, he evolved into your typical pretentious person.

[@zenhaelcero8481]

Yep. "All art is subjective! Except for the art you're advocating for, which would be boring." By his own metric - which is to say, no metric at all - Just Write is unable to make any argument against anything, because his own philosophy of 'it's all just completely subjective' means that anybody else's perspective would have to be just as valid as his, according to him.

[@thinkwithurdipstick]

Ah, Michelangelo is boring! Now menstrual blood on a bed sheet, now that’s what I call art!

[@eaglebearer]

EFAP is the gift that never ends

[@dm1451]

Damn right

[@scottski02]

You could even say it's the LONGEST gift

[@Bogglemanify]

of course it never ends, it is the perpetual middle which is the best part.

[@1who4me]

EFAP is a waste of time. His old critiques are 100% better

[@eaglebearer]

@@1who4me nah

[@deeta000]

Oh man ): I get you’re uploading the juicy bit but the whole opening with you and Wolf making fun of reader response theory was incredible.

[@pizza_the_hutt93]

Good point, would be nice to have that part for context to the '_____ response theory' meme

[@CuhShark]

Old video but JustWrite's biggest flaw in his argument is that he believes there is a distinct separation between intellectual and emotional satisfaction. For many many people, those two concepts are directly tied together. I've definitely found myself disappointed at the biggest emotional payoffs of many movies because either consciously or subconsciously I knew that the events which led up to them didn't make sense. It's nice that JW can ignore certain objective problems with films and enjoy the emotional payoffs because of that. But not everyone can do that and I think that's the reason why objective analysis is so important. If acknowledging flaws in film "decreases the amount of enjoyment in the world" then it is the responsibility of the writer to create a story without them - not the critics responsibility to not point them out.

[@RogueFox2185]

Ironic that Just Write could use subjective criticism to save himself but not TLJ.

[@Muck006]

Too bad "subjective criticism" is not criticism at all ... but rather "a feeling".

[@deathmachine808]

"There's a bunch of things in the Last Jedi that are gonna stick around" - let's see how that one ages!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@2ndairborneguy790]

well the shit writing stuck around

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

meaww.com/the-last-jedi-director-rian-johnson-hate-thank-twitterati-defends-star-wars-the-rise-fo-skywalker LOL Aged well indeed.

[@ND62511]

TRoS: Allow me to introduce myself.

[@sts25186055]

Ever had an opossum die in your AC duct? That shit sticks around.

[@rickaroo3245]

How ironic someone named Just Write whose channel is about writing can't tell when a story is poorly written.

[@exhumedlegume8870]

To be fair, his name is just _Just_ Write, not Just Write _Well._

[@choueriito2548]

"Ironic" - Creamy Sheev Palpatine, 19BBY

[@deeta000]

His videos on the hobbit films are great. Something about TLJ made critics go bonkers.

[@gmonkman]

cheap shot, but lol.

[@ladscrimpton8590]

The frustrating part is that he does understand good writing vs poor writing. He agrees with Mauler that several parts of TLJ don't make sense or are poorly written, but Just Write chooses to dismiss these issues as irrelevant.

[@carlosdeleon7755]

Okay that’s...*chuckles nervously* That’s it, that’s the whole video

[@RossTheNinja]

He also says um a lot

[@赤青白]

Wolf, if you're reading this.... I hope you're doing well.

[@nahtesalinas1917]

Yeah. We love you and miss you, buddy.

[@Сайтамен]

Надеюсь, ты знаешь, кто ты.

[@electricbayonet2]

Oh, I remember this fight scene! It was the climactic one in 'EFAP Origins: The First Tism' right? Man, that was a strong prequel. I was a bit worried when I heard that they were making a prequel to the EFAP series, especially since Jared wasn't head writer anymore, but it worked out really well. We would get periodic references to 'The JustWrite Debate' during the series proper, and some references to more direct acts of tism ('Reader Response Theory' and 'Evolving as a critic' come to mind), but I was worried that an on-screen depiction of the JW Debate would inevitably fall short of how it was built up in my head. Thank goodness they got Tonald Loc to take the place of head writer after Jared left. I'm happy with how it turned out. Plus, it's a chance to see Wolf back in action. I'm still holding out hope that he'll be written back onto the show, though.

[@TheOneAverageJoe]

it's all thanks to our supreme god admiral tonald🙏🙏

[@Epsilon191]

"I'm not being stubborn here, I'm just write"

[@GrimgoreIronhide]

These conversations with subjectivists almost always go the same way. The objectivitst goes "what about this, this, this, this and this?" The subjectivist goes "Nah, nah, nah, nope, no, nah. You cant prove any of that because your senses are not infallible." They continue in this vein for a long time untill the Objectivist goes "Okay then, well, how do you know or do anything?" To which the subjectivist reply "Just don't think about it." Its completely enraging to me. Subjectivism is a position which exists only because generations of people who believed in and adhered to an Objective conception of reality suffered and worked hard for centuries to create enough wealth for the Subjectivist to survive in the first place. Despite this the Subjectivist holds the very worldview that gave him birth in contempt because it does not allow him to interpret the world in a way that caters to his feelings.

[@nwobw]

I can feel my brain cells dying as Just Write talks. The Last Jedi revealed so much about the KZbin critic community.

[@lordinquisitordunn336]

Dale yeah and the podcasting community since Alex Shaw keeps complaining about the fact that people complain that tlj is one of the worst movies ever

[@addison_v_ertisement1678]

Mauler brings brain cells back from the dead, so it balances out.

[@electricbayonet2]

Between JW's attempted defense and the one made in the Not So Great Debate, it's fascinating to see how TLJ's awfulness transcends the ability of pretty much _anyone_ to defend its quality. Maybe that's why the Jack Saints, Quintons, etc of the world have abandoned direct defenses of the film and instead focus on out-of-context snipes (or just outright lying) at _how_ Mauler and Co. criticize things. Talk about reinventing the wheel, except this time it's reinventing the ad hominem argument: their points are shit, and they sure aren't going to do better than JW did in a live debate, so why not just attack the people making them instead?

[@supershadey09]

Folks have also taken to talking about art as a whole when critics like Mauler tend to focus specifically on movies and tv.

[@jacobking5400]

That example about fireworks and rockets exploding was absolute gold and I cannot believe you just came up with that on the spot.

[@ergoth154]

The nervous "This is so funny..." from JW always gets me listening back on this lol. He has no answer for this, as if art and reality are completely separate. Art is reality, how is it not? We accept the existence of emotions and logical concepts as reality, why is art in a void separate from us. This is why categories like surreal and abstract exist as a deconstruction of reality, but you can only do this while based in reality.

[@ergoth154]

This is so weird a Just Write video was just suggested to me, his "How MacGuffins Can Ruin a Film". It's a 7 minute video from 2 years ago and it wasn't that bad but I think years of Long Man have ruined me. I was like "I'd need some more examples of that... and some more clarification on this would be nice.. Oh it's over?" Also, We miss you Wolf!

[@lordofthepizzapie9319]

Once you go long, anything else just fells wrong.

[@johannesseyfried7933]

The truly enlightened Person calls the MacMuffins nowadays. 😜😊

[@bashamd96]

Truly Long Man has evolved as a critic and as such we can't go back to those non evolved ones

[@ergoth154]

@@johannesseyfried7933 I was quoting his vid so didn't want people thinking Just Write was enlightened about McMuffins 2 years ago lol

[@Muck006]

@@lordofthepizzapie9319 Size matters ... but quality and logic do too.

[@TheAutistWhisperer]

I know the Expanded Universe has it's issues, but there was more quality in those stories than what Disney is offering.

[@Muck006]

You didnt need to use any Expanded Universe to write a GOOD and CONSISTENT trilogy! The simplest way would be ... - starting with "the band being back together" and going on with their daily lives - then Han Solo and Chewie get blown up in the Millenium Falcon but manage to send a cryptic warning "it's the [STATIC]" - Luke and Leia put together a team to investigate ... and the new generation takes over to solve the mystery ... maybe coming back for advice from their mentors ... All you need to do is to fill in the blanks as to what mystery Han discovered.

[@Mord12gp]

@@Muck006 I wouldn't kill any of the major three, MAYBE Luke in the last movie (and that's a BIG MAYBE), but other wise people should leave the OG characters alone. Have the story be about the new characters. The old characters should be mentors, they don't need to eclipse the story they should add to it and help the new characters grow into their own roles that the OGs never had.

[@TheAutistWhisperer]

@@Muck006 I didn't say you couldn't, I merely stated there more quality stories than what Disney is producing, but I concur with your sentiments.

[@LordVader1094]

@@TheAutistWhisperer Movie wise, sure. But when it comes to books, the quantity to quality ratio is far higher with current New Canon. Then again, outside of the original Thrawn books even the EU seemed terrible at handling post-RotJ content just like Disney. I kind of wonder if that era is somehow cursed, because as soon as they skipped to about 100 years later with Legacy it got really good. Too bad Disney then decided to murder it in its sleep, and adapt the worst parts of the EU for their trilogy while adding their own terrible shit on top.

[@Elizabelle79]

11 minutes in and he says he studied English literature. So did I. I met a lot of students who read things into novels and used “evidence” to make their case. Most of them were objectively incorrect. And fun fact: in my first year of uni I knew more about the texts than the teacher... because I had read them all the way through and not just the bit we were looking at. So yeah, having an English literature background isn’t something that gives you any kind of authority on critique. Especially if you think that meaning in fiction is subjective. That’s just silly.

[@ogyonmastaflux]

JW actually implied there is no such thing as objectively good storytelling. Wowowowowowowowowow. Muh art, muh art. Someone needs to tear up this dudes degree.

[@aaron_431]

Leaving a F in chat for Wolf. May that massive have a good life wherever he may be.

[@SangheiliSpecOp]

F

[@idontexist2449]

F

[@yeetdiscreet1278]

F

[@Catterjeeo]

F

[@bkanderson2659]

F

[@jimsaintruth4248]

I can't believe that I've never watched this before, considering how important it is to the lore

[@rall172]

To be honest, I think it is about time someone starts an "EFAP loremaster" channel.

[@Party_Almsivi]

“How’s your day been?” “It’s actually been great!” Oof, that’s about to change.

[@InsolentCrow]

An Unbridled Rage and the origin of The Evolved Critic in two days? You spoil us Longman.

[@BrennanCh06]

Big oof, Mauler started out easing him in, and then just Socratically picked him apart. Beautiful work.

[@darwinxavier3516]

It's too bad there are people who interpret the Socratic method as being hostile to the person. Not really this guy but I've run into plenty of people who do.

[@EdgarFriendlysCivicsTeacher]

​@@darwinxavier3516 it has great utility in therapy. But even the idea that you should try to filter or question your thoughts for cognitive distortion is hostile is a massive barrier to personal growth.

[@saiyancurseultimate9402]

Just write is evolving as the saiyan curse takes him...

[@respectedsalmon9390]

I know you got that from ItsAnimeGirl, but I'm curious if you learned it from her video or Just A Robot's coverage of her.

[@danielyoungblood3931]

What a reference. Jeez

[@diegodankquixote-wry3242]

Omg classic video. A thermo nuclear clickbait hot take. I feel slightly bad itsanimegirl but that video is so hilariously bad that I was unforgivable. it's like a gedap on dragon ball. I found about the video from blackscape(?). Xandiel's first video has the best though.

[@RebornVengeancex]

No not the curse

[@goji3755]

"I think The Last Jedi should be used in universities to show how fundamentally broken a film can get from a script" Two years later we have confirmation that this IS happening. MauLer must have traces of spider in him.

[@zohzie]

Is mauler supposed to be alfred?

[@joshuabell7761]

Oh really? Where?

[@joshuabell7761]

Which university?

[@goji3755]

@@joshuabell7761 Not one set university - there's a filmmaker named Kamran Pasha who teaches screenwriting seminars at universities all over the country - he uses Star Wars as an example of how to write a screenplay... with the exception of TLJ, which he uses as an example of how NOT to.

[@joshuabell7761]

@@goji3755 Oh wow. I'd love to see Just Write continue to defend it after hearing that.

[@bandaid6550]

Just Write:"We're going pretty long here." Wolf and MauLer: "We have only begun."

[@thelax5311]

I remember this one. The “I evolved as a critic” discussion.

[@DonnaCPunk]

JW: "I think there a bunch of things in The Last Jedi that are pretty valuable and are gonna stick around. That, to me, is a sign of quality." JJ: *presses X to Doubt*

[@TheSourMelon_]

When your podcast is so deep you need lore to explain all the references. Soon we'll need an EFAP language course.

[@Muck006]

Eventually there will be EFAP boxed set DVDs on Amazon ... there are already seasons and memes are "extras"!

[@mccor002]

Soon we'll have people who don't know who Wolf is

[@OkOk-vj9db]

@@mccor002 That will be a sad day

[@Alienrun]

I do, infact, believe that this guy studied English Literature a lot when he went to college... I don't believe that he ever questioned what he was taught though...

[@dragonknightleader1]

That's the annoying aspect of Literature class and literary critique in particular. It automatically makes an appeal to authority by presupposing that classical lit books must be better. So even a normal person taking it doesn't really know why those classical lit books withstood the passage of time. Creative Writing FTW as it actually teaches what good stories need to have like pacing and characterization. The ability to falsify a story by saying it's terrible is how people learn real critiquing.

[@Harrinsain]

I'm super glad I found Mauler and was introduced to the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity when I did. Because of how the education system teaches the "everything is subjective" bullshit, I likely would have been swept away by that if I hadn't been aware of other ideas as presented by MauLer and co. about a year before my school shoved this garbage down my throat for 2 years straight. It's honestly made me want to become an English teacher, so that I can correct this garble and stop the system from creating minds like Just Write's.

[@Harrinsain]

@@das_ollon Fighting the good fight.

[@Harrinsain]

3:39 "I'm more interested in what the underlying part of a movie is- like- what's the author attempting to get across." And that's where I think Just Write differs so heavily from MauLer and Wolf. That's where the conflict in position lies. And I just somehow don't think this is being picked up on, at least on Just Write's end. Just Write is more concerned with the attempt being made at communicating an idea rather than the execution of that communication, which simply comes off as strange to me. The product we're given as an audience isn't representative of "the attempt" or what the intent was- we can't possibly know the intent or what was actively attempted by the creator anyway without going to third party material, at which point the idea wouldn't be a merit of the media. What we see in the final product is the execution; that's what the final product is, in essence. An idea cannot be communicated without being executed in the first place. Regardless of what idea the creator is trying to communicate, and if they can't do that effectively, well that's just how it is; they haven't done it effectively. This is why internal consistency matters. Stories, like any other art form, is a form of communication; ideas, messages, cultural paradigms, politics, personal values, etc. Not to say that communication is art’s purpose, as that would be overstepping my bounds. Rather that communication of ideas is simply something inherent in the fact that, with art, you are presenting your audience with ideas, which is, in and of itself, communication; communication comes by virtue of presenting your audience with information and things to consider. And if you have an inconsistency or contradiction in the information you're presenting, there is now a sizable gap in your communication. And the more closely related to the core ideas or mechanical construction of a story those contradictions are, the more and more muddied your communication will become. Worst case scenario, where nothing makes any sense, any cohesive conclusions drawn out of a work would be mere conjecture of the individual. It wouldn't be representative of merits within the work, but rather merits of your own creativity. Consistency also dictates stakes. You can't have stakes without consistency- without rules, as stakes are built entirely on such. "If x is allowed to happen, then y result will occur". But what's more, this logic can be applied to pretty much any element of a story. A magic system, for example: if your story establishes that a spell will kill you if you cast it, then have someone cast it and not die without giving any in-universe justification for why such an anomaly occurred, the audience is no longer in a position to trust the information the story gives, because on a dime, for all they know, it could be contradicted. Consistency allows for engagement with the narrative from the audience. If the audience doesn't know or simply cannot know what's going on in the story due to frequent contradictions in information, there is no engagement to be had, as there is nothing for us to follow, nothing for us to connect with, nothing in which to ground our understanding because there might as well be nothing to understand. Consistency is the bedrock for storytelling. You cannot have a coherent story without some semblance of internal consistency, otherwise you may as well be speaking Greek to your audience, for all the difference it makes. And for anyone who would attempt to straw-man this idea; "Internal consistency" does not have anything to do with being realistic or adhering to real-life rules, laws or limitations. The word "internal" in the phrase should make you privy to that already. A story is adherent only to the rules it sets for itself. That's why it's categorized as fiction in the first place; because it isn't real and has the opportunity to take advantage of that fact. Consistency on the other hand, is universal. Every story needs consistency in its own ideas, otherwise, as previously said, there can be no engagement had by the audience and the communication on the part of the creator could be entirely obscured. And to paraphrase MauLer's own words: Why not be consistent? There is nothing to be gained by lacking consistency, but the opposite is also true; there is nothing to be lost by maintaining consistency. In fact, a strong sense of consistency could only ever serve to bolster an audience member's engagement with the product and the clarity with which ideas are communicated. To put it simply, I don't think anyone would ever be stupid enough to say "that story was terribly written, it made too much sense!".

[@thorthewolf8801]

Exactly, if he thinks messages are more important than I can just write down a motivational quote on a piece of paper, film it, and then send it to him. By his standards it will be of the same quality as a movie.

[@jonbishop6001]

Just Write is looking for a consensus instead of objectivity.

[@thuglifebear5256]

They don't believe in objectivity, and will settle for groupthink. You can see it in his arguments and even his behavior.

[@raphaelambrosiuscostco]

His strongest point is that the total overall enjoyment might decrease if we readily employ critical thinking when discussing products. That sounds intuitive until the standard for creations would inevitably increases and more better products are created

[@hashvendetta7226]

@@raphaelambrosiuscostco that's basically "as long as jamal is more happy that he stole my bike, than I am sad that he took it, that's ok"...

[@evenAndre]

Interesting to check out this debate now. I feel the main reason to analyse stuff Mooler-style, is to see if the content has staying power, and also why we generally feel something is bad vs good when we don't spot it right away on first watching. One can feel something is good, but on closer inspection, the initial impression was false due to a host of human reasons. I wish more critics was ok with saying that their initial opinion was wrong if enough problems are brought up in retrospect.

[@juanchitaro5380]

I think an easy way to explain why plot holes definitely matter is to explain them as noise. Anything that leads your attention away from the key elements of the scene or from the act of watching a movie overall, will be a problem no matter what message are you trying to convey. Like a cellphone ringing during a play, it ruins the experience. A plot hole or an inconsistency will leave you at a loss regarding how to feel. If a man who want's to kill his wife's murderer keeps chasing him at a meters distance in stead of using the gun we know he has in his pocket, we are going to be so puzzled and distracted by this mismatch between the elements presented and the events happening that we won't be able to appreciate this emotionally charged and perfectly filmed chase. There are ways to address this problem and solve it, but you HAVE to address why he is not shooting him. If you don't, people will now be distracted and bothered regarding everything that you build over this inconsistency. If the protagonist commits suicide for failing to avenge his wife, it will now have a comedic tone, because this is all happening because the director forgot the man had a gun in his pocket. It's a distracting noise over a melody, it detracts from the experience that you could have had.

[@DoffysGlasses]

All those moments, which sound like nervous laughter from JW when he can't respond right away. I don't know, there's something about those moments

[@DoktorSammich]

It’s fascinating how difficult it can be for some people to detach their feelings from objectivity. Something can be really bad as a fact and loved regardless or vice versa.

[@Krazy8ts]

He unironically used "Reduce the amount of happiness meme" 46:00

[@KaNoMikoProductions]

This is the origin of the meme.

[@thinkwithurdipstick]

Queen Bitch KaNoMiko Just Write is the progenitor of many a meme

[@connorhull9215]

**Chuckles in Dooku** "I've been waiting for this..."

[@YeomanArcher]

"Reduce the amount of enjoyment in the world"? Wait, did that bike comic come out before or after this?

[@unformedeight]

"When a movie doesn't quite fit with it's predecessors it doesn't bother as much as it used to" Didnt bother when TFA and TLJ didn't fit in with the OT but when ROS doesn't fit with TLJ, it's bad

[@adrianoippolito1999]

Tlj didnt even fit with tfa

[@BrennanCh06]

>writing structure is real >people feel things, sometimes in ways you don't expect >therefore writing structure doesn't affect how people feel things Huge logic gap from JW.

[@jackiedan2450]

"It's not objective if one person disagrees with it".

[@looinrims]

I disagree that the earth is round and the sun is hot It’s not objective

[@alolanraichu9034]

I'm having flashbacks to the Critical Theory course that made me stop being an English major. This is exactly what every class sounded like. But with 25~ Just Writes and one me, only speaking up occasionally.

[@JustStop19]

I am SO sorry for you... It must have been horrible.

[@LeaXoftheUnderworld2]

I think I saw JW’s Black Panther video long before I knew who he was. As soon as he tried to compare Killmonger to Colon Kapernick, I stopped taking it seriously

[@MrCantStopTheRobot]

Every time Just Write would speak, edit him out, and replace him with that one clip of The Dude saying, "That's just, like, your opinion, man."

[@krat2242]

The idea that you would create a film/book/work of art, with the intention that it only be viewed once because on a second viewing onward the cracks would show, would be to accept that you cannot create a cohesive good story. An author who is OK with mediocrity will never achieve greatness. Just Write therefore.. is inspiring young writers to gloss over mistakes/errors and accept mediocrity, stunting their growth and potential and keeping them from honing their craft to achieve greatness. I've been writing my book for almost 4+ years, and then after i finish this i get two write book 2. I am constantly finding small errors, and almost feel ill never be satisfied with its level of polish. But the day I stop looking for flaws, is the day I accept mediocrity. Don't follow Just Write's advice. Go do the hard work and become legendary.

[@TheOneAverageJoe]

the thought of someone like Tolkien writing something and saying god I hope no one reads this more than once is hilarious to me. keep at it!

[@JustAnArrogantAlien]

There is one question that would’ve absolutely destroyed Just Write’s position. He states at the beginning that there are points in _The Last Jedi_ that he feels are important; he doesn’t specify what, but he appeals to a message of some sort that the movie contains and he feels is both valuable and worth sharing. So THE question is: *“do you believe that those messages are an **_objective_** part of this film?”* Given his position he would have to answer no, because if everything is subjective, then people will draw whatever _they_ see and feel from any film, not what the director (or Just Write) wants them to. And in that case, then what value does he even believe the movie contains that’s worth sharing at all?

[@tristanmoore9653]

That’s the dumbest attempt at a gotcha I’ve ever read.

[@JustAnArrogantAlien]

@@tristanmoore9653 Why is that?

[@tristanmoore9653]

@@JustAnArrogantAlien Because you’ve answered your own question - what value does he believe the film contains? The messages and themes… that he takes away from the film. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the word subjectivity in this case - JW, with all of his internal baggage, watches the film and the film itself is not a vacuum. You combine the subjectivity of a person with the text of an artistic venture and you yield interpretation. Does that mean it’s meaningless or “not worth sharing”? No! Almost exactly the opposite, actually. Just because it’s JW’s interpretation doesn’t mean he lacks a reason for feeling a certain way about it - and, by extension, that that reason can’t be communicated to another person. He’s responding to a film - so drawing on textual evidence, citing that evidence, and explaining his feelings elucidates to another how he feels. This, in turn, prompts the listener to another mode of interpretation, either in the moment or on rewatch. They may or may not be convinced, that will always be subjective (i.e. dependent on the internal reasoning/feelings of that person), but advocating for a multiplicity of interpretations is not advocating for an end to discussion. The problem I and many others take with the “objective critique” that’s offered by Mauler and the like is that it’s not really objective. (Objective in the sense that it’s telling us anything about the “reality” of a work of fiction; because fiction is not reality.) Like, you may believe in an objective reality - many do - and a naturalist methodology more or less confirms one (until we enter the quantum realm… and deal in relativistic physics), but a work of art is a construct. It may be informed by reality, but it is necessarily facsimile. It stands on a foundation of sand. The porous nature of a work of art, as opposed to reality, is what allows for the human observer to fit themselves into it. And we all fit ourselves differently into the art we experience - that’s the beauty of it! And with beauty comes ugliness, as inevitably anything that’s evocative will silo the observer, simply put, into positive or negative boxes w/r/t the work of art. That’s what breeds discourse! But unlike the nature of reality, where empirical evidence can settle questions of its objective nature, art remains a construct - thus, the discourse never ends. The interpretations continue. No one is right or wrong to feel a certain way about a work of art - merely convincing or unconvincing to others. So, our interpretations reflect who we are, when we live, how old we are, who we watched with, what we are when we watched, etc. etc. The objectivity that Mauler refers to is an illusion - internal consistency itself is subjective. Inland Empire is a film many would call internally inconsistent - even if I agreed, I still find it to be a good film. This is just a long-winded way of saying if an observer can be influenced by the film in a multitude of a ways, they can also be influenced by what another observer thinks of the film. Hence the value of discourse.

[@JustAnArrogantAlien]

@@tristanmoore9653 An approach like this only works if all interpretations are equally valid. But they aren't. Let me use one of Just Write's own examples: he once suggested _A New Hope_ could be seen as a battle between theism and atheism, with Luke using his faith in the Force to defeat the nonreligious, scientifically-minded Empire. But that interpretation doesn't add up because the Empire's supreme commanders _also_ use the Force, which means _both_ factions are equally spiritual. The movie provides no "atheists" for the "theists" to fight, so this interpretation is wrong. Everyone is free to work their own meaning into the media they consume, just as they are free to do with real life. But whether or not their interpretations are correct comes down to how well they stand against the facts of the story, and if the facts and the interpretations are at odds, then the facts must hold sway. _"A work of art is a construct. It may be informed by reality, but it is necessarily facsimile. It stands on a foundation of sand."_ Not at all! Darth Vader is a Sith Lord. His real name is Anakin Skywalker. His wife was Padme Amidala. Luke Skywalker is his son and Leia Organa is his daughter. These details are set in stone, not sand. It is objective qualities like these that are the foundation on which viewers build their subjective experiences. And if the objective structure of a story is broken, then their experiences of it will suffer as a result. If stories were built on sand, then wouldn't that mean our interpretations are built on sand too? Could we and would we not interpret someone else's interpretation through our own lenses as well? How are we even meant to share our perspectives with others if they're all busy filtering everything out to match their own convictions? Communication withers without some kind of shared objective bedrock. _"No one is right or wrong to feel a certain way about a work of art - merely convincing or unconvincing to others."_ There's a difference, though, between your interpretation of a film and your feelings for it. Your interpretation must be built on what the film objectively is, but you are free to feel whatever way you will about it. For instance, I like _Independence Day._ Objectively it's not a good movie - plot holes galore, poorly developed characters - but I have a lot of fun watching it. It can put me in a good mood. I cannot go around claiming that _Independence Day_ is a well-made film, though, because I could not back that up in a discussion. I must settle for liking it in spite of its flaws. The film is just a guilty pleasure, and there's nothing wrong with that.

[@tristanmoore9653]

@@JustAnArrogantAlien That’s a perfectly valid interpretation because 1) the supreme commander of the Empire in Star Wars (1977) is Tarkin, who is a technocratic fascist that doesn’t believe in the spiritual power of the Force. Luke defeats the Empire by turning off his targeting computer - his technology - and trusting in his instincts/spirit/humanity/whatever you want to call it. But I think we’ve gotten sidetracked, in part due to my sloppiness in my last response and also due to the fact that I don’t think JW’s actual position is that “everything is subjective.” When you’re referring to textual elements (such as Darth Vader being Luke’s father; a “fact” btw that contradicts the “fact” of the original Star Wars that he murdered his father - many of these elements remain malleable), I think you’ve misunderstood me. If a viewer says, “There was a flying purple elephant in Star Wars,” then they’re wrong; likewise, if they say, “Star Wars is good because of the flying purple elephant,” they are wrong, but they’re not wrong for ascribing the value of “goodness” onto Star Wars. It’s just that their reasoning is wrong - that’s a problem on their end; they are not articulating the “why” they think the film is good. Which imo is a separate discussion; this is in part why we have film/literature classes. Teaching literacy teaches viewers how to post-hoc rationalize their feelings into an argument. In a sense, it’s a rhetorical strategy/talent. But I think it’s just as valid to say, “It’s good because I liked it.” The only problem is 1) That statement is tautological; why would you like something you didn’t think is good? Why wouldn’t you like something that is good? It doesn’t clue us into the viewer’s thinking, nor does it say anything about the film. And 2) It begs the question: Why did you like it other than thinking it’s good? But ultimately, I think any discussion about the quality of a film rests on the viewer’s personal feelings of liking it or not liking it; the discourse is about parsing out the whys and why nots. That doesn’t mean someone can’t be wrong about the, as you say, “objective qualities” of a film - they can’t say, “I like this shot/this shot means X because it pans,” when it, in fact, zooms. To pan and to zoom are two different, technically defined cinematic motions; but neither has an ascribed value judgement to them - it’s up to the viewer to react emotionally to those moves and then ascribe whether they are good or bad. Re: your last point. The hitch with a “guilty pleasure” is that it’s only such as long as one feels some sort of shame about liking it - I don’t feel personal shame for liking Independence Day. I see flaws in it, but I think it’s good for what it is. Overall well-made, even. Now, either I can back that up in a discussion or I can’t; whether I can or can’t though is a flaw on my part, just as the guilt you experience watching it is on you, not the film. So, we’ve moved away from describing objective elements of the film - and, again, even an element like a “plot hole” may exist beyond a shadow of a doubt in a film, but whether it’s a good or bad thing comes down to personal interpretation.

[@Harrinsain]

Just Write is mindnumbing in how he listens to what MauLer and Wolf say and then asks them questions that they just answered 5 second ago

[@IcedCub]

"I feel like, for meeeee" is this guys argument

[@SeiferTV]

This feels like that patrick meme when they are arguing with the villain. M: So, this is a plothole, right? JW: Yup M: And thus, it makes whatever happens after, not make sense? JW: Yup M: And, whatever theme you want to extract from that, falls apart when there are enough of those, right? JW:That makes sense to me M: So, that makes the movie objectively bad... JW: WELL THAT'S SUBJECTIVE

[@weisin9660]

Still need IHE's one tho...

[@jebalitabb8228]

Weisin 96 it’s like the Snyder cut, we know it exists but will never get to see it

[@Longshanks1690]

@Weisin 96 Well, the original is deleted and gone forever. :( (Unless Wolf has it saved on his computer or something but I doubt it) We’ll have to bide our time until MauLer releases the one he did with Rags on EFAP, lol.

[@YourPrivateNightmare]

the forbidden episode

[@deeta000]

If anything, just release IHEs reaction to finding out the conversation was being recorded.

[@vadandrumist1670]

Mauler did say in one of the recent EFAPs he would be uploading that one soon. I mean "soon" coming from him could be two or three years, but we do know it'll come out eventually.

[@Muck006]

Dear Just Write, as humans we can NOT live in a world where subjectivity trumps objectivity, because subjectivity is "just for the moment" ... feelings based. A system of laws that is based on subjectivity is "hate speech laws" ... which are a bad idea because everyone has a different idea about what hate actually is. Thus it is FAR MORE IMPORTANT that a movie has "internal consistency" ... and "making you feel good" is JUST A BONUS that you reach when the rest of the movie works. Please stop judging movies by your feelings ... because they are JUST YOUR feelings and everybody else will feel something different.

[@Kernwadi]

This debate is the one that I probably hate the most; in the other debates we've had: - The Not So Great Debate Guy who despite making 0 sense and constantly stumbling on his own words was at the very least genuine and had no bad intent. - Maj0r Lee, who to this day I don't know if was a troll or just an idiot, the embodiment of "it hurt itself in it's confusion" and unable to stay on topic for longer than one minute. - YezenIRL who accidentally (hopefully) argued in defence of genocide, incest and supported utilitarian ethics; and while making terrible arguments, you could at least laugh at him. - Anomaly Inc - I don't even remember him, so it probably wasn't great... But Just Write or "Mr. Subjective", is someone who I previously liked and enjoyed watching from time to time, and now seeing him in this debate, listening to the nonsense he vomits out, it's embaressing for him and people who support him... I don't think that any of the other people debated on EFAP were trying as hard as he did to just not answer questions directly and sneakingly go off the topics that he couldn't argue about, not to mention that all he did was basically mental gymnastics on an olympic level; just to not agree on anything with the EFAP hosts. It was terrible, I expected a lot more from him because he portrays himself as a serious person and people see him as someone to be taken seriously. I feel a calm anger inside me.

[@martinkirbits4752]

Has it really been so long since we evolved as critics

[@amandaliberty08]

Evolution is usually gradual and takes a long(man) time.

[@immortallix]

"I think a critic should evolve" Just say opinions change. No need to prop it up in pretentiousness

[@jonbaxter2254]

Pretentious is how these people live.

[@iivin4233]

8:47 That movie would be Apollo 13. In that movie the stakes are created by the rules of the real world we live in. Every fact from the way duct tape works to the shape of fittings to the way old computers worked to the way space works made the Apollo 13 mission a tense situation. Rules and reality made that story a story. The writers couldn't rescue those astronauts.

[@notsae66]

"Every event in a story is metaphorical." Nope. I disagree with the base premise, sometimes an event doesn't have an greater than meaning than what it is literally showing because more often than not that's how it works in real life. "Its okay for those little details to not add up in retrospect." No, it isn't. Those "little details" (and they're not little at all in this case) are the difference between average and extraordinary in film making, a movie, a story, is just a bunch of little details put together to form grand tapestries.This guys whole premise is useless and wrong, subjectivity is as useless for basically everything as solipsism is for debates.

[@andrewlevin6331]

Glad Wolf is doing what’s best for him. We’ll miss him, but ultimately, just hope he’s doing better. Maybe he’ll come back someday, maybe not but either way, it was one hell of a good ride.

[@bmardiney]

Forget teaching The Last Jedi in writing school, teach this debate in philosophy classes. This is the fundamental battle of all human understanding: primacy of existence vs primacy of consciousness. This is what happens to a human mind when you brainwash it to think that objective reality doesn’t exist. You get a puddle of cognitive mush. You get a broken human being. It’s a shame Wolf has such a negative (and most likely ignorant) view of Ayn Rand because he agrees with her in lots of ways.

[@BrennanCh06]

It's comforting to think reality isn't objective, because it means it will not demand more of us than we feel like doing.

[@bmardiney]

Thorsvald exactly. It’s why people like this focus so much on emotion and solipsistic “lived experience”. It’s a developmentally arrested way of avoiding responsibly and maturity. Which is why these people are so often mentally ill as well.

[@Muck006]

You cant have science without objectivity (because scientific results need to be reproduceable). You cant have a just system of laws without objectivity and lack of emotion (which we still have to work on, because women get lighter sentences than men for the same crime).

[@darkthorpocomicknight7891]

LOL OK I'll bite objective reality doesn't exist - this is not some profane werewolf doctrine. Its been around since Kant and no one not even Rand has a good counter. So the debate is how WE as humans make use of our concepts. But the real world is not accessible to us - never has been even people who hate Kant like Nietzsche agree his basic point is correct. We deal with mental representations and representations only. Do you have some magic solution to "know" reality and if so what is oh great one.

[@bmardiney]

Chan Thorpe you really think I’m going to engage with someone who acts like you do, an obvious bad faith actor? Next time, maybe try approaching people with a bit more humility and willingness to engage meaningfully. At least then you can appear to care about learning and not tip your hand so early.

[@wrayday7149]

I would not classify this as a debate... this is a guy realizing he can't win a conversation and doing everything in his power to deflect/dodge any point. This should be the new Blade Runner test .... sit these robots down and try and get them to criticize a film they like. JW just wasted everyones time by pedantically talking about talking about a film ... . He kind of let slip the real issue he has with debates .... if the other person makes a good point and you change your opinion you somehow lost. JW .... man, it's called GAINING A NEW PERSPECTIVE ... or LEARNING SOMETHING NEW.... it may be scary but it is how one grows.