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

This is the fourth of the Expanded Universe of the EFAP lore.
In this instalment, we revisit another old debate.
Wolf and MauLer debate the merits of film analysis and the differences between many critics.
We learn about all of the things and the stuffs.

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@fatgumthegoat]

​@@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"

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@ZeroRaider]

Ah, I sometimes forget EFAP had a prequel trilogy.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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" *

[@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

[@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.

[@amanibob1416]

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

[@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

[@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

[@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

[@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?"

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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".

[@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.

[@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.

[@fatgumthegoat]

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

[@InsolentCrow]

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

[@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.

[@dongxx]

No not the curse

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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*

[@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.

[@thelax5311]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@jmuk3571]

“Like right? Like right? Like right? Like right? Like right Like right? Like right? Like right? Like right? Like right? Like right? Like right?” All I heard

[@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.

[@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.

[@connorhull9215]

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

[@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"...

[@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."

[@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.

[@BrennanCh06]

The nervous laughter of the doomed.

[@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.

[@IcedCub]

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

[@objectiverobot7588]

Fact: His subjective opinion has no baring on my existence. I exist.

[@arklaw8306]

Fact: His subjective opinion has no baring on the events of a movie. They happen.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@swinehouse]

We will always miss Wolf, but the fact that debates like this can exist represents why we are human.

[@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

[@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.

[@golnectr]

This sounds like, "this is movie has many objective flaws.". "Yeah, but I don't care and I like it." For over an hour.

[@amanibob1416]

" *Just Write evolved as a living meme... Otherwise, he'd have been melted, critically.* " Bilbo Skywalker

[@KaiMFS]

That Last Airbender movie argument is total trash. There are stories of kids literally apologizing to their parents, telling them it is supposed to be good, and then showing their parents the cartoon when they get home. The KIDS obviously saw all the glaring problems with it even if they can't articulate it as well as an adult. That movie flopped because KIDS thought it sucked. So yes, they are absorbing all the problems, because kids aren't stupid. Kids movies didn't used to talk down to us. Pretty much all kids content does now, though. I think that's why kids don't really watch TV anymore and they're all on youtube.

[@madcapmakov2]

Yeah a fucking kid would bored with that fucking movie, what is JW on about? “kids will enjoy 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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@Le_Church]

I love how you have to keep explaining what objectivity is to these people.

[@freddykingofturtles]

Just Write's 'evolution' is just another example of the *Upgrade* and *Go Back* button meme.

[@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.

[@fatgumthegoat]

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!

[@tudor1515]

It’s great to hear wolf again- even if it’s an old recording. Miss ya Wolfy

[@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.

[@Quikostdreggs]

I think JW just wants emotional payoff. Mauler wants a watertight setup in order to give value and structure to the emotional payoff. Hence Mauler saying the film has to "earn" its payoffs. Good way to word it.

[@jebalitabb8228]

When I first heard this I had respect for Just Write, as he came on to debate after his video was torn apart for hours. Nowadays he sounds like such a coward compared to this version of himself.

[@Longshanks1690]

@Jebalita BattleBush Can you blame him? They quite literally destroyed his whole worldview while deciding what toppings to have on their next pizza at the same time.

[@jebalitabb8228]

King Edward "Longshanks" I, Hammer of the Scots, Lord of Wales and King of England lmao good point. Not to make it political but Just write seems like the pineapple on pizza type of dude

[@turtleanton6539]

@@jebalitabb8228 😂😂thats just a Hawaii here in Sweden. And what politics would that pizza imply?🤔🤔 Im a Caprriciosa man myself.

[@jebalitabb8228]

Turtle Anton That’s fair, I mean here in Texas we dip French fries in ice cream or eat fried pickles so I have no room to judge lmao

[@Kayanne88]

Jebalita BattleBush ummm I’m not into politics whatsoever and LOVE pineapple on pizza lol :p

[@MordeanSchein]

I remember being there live for the original stream, same with the "Not So Great Debate". I long for the time to sit through entire live EFAPs like in the past. Most of all, I miss Wolf. I never got a chance to read his novel before it was unobtainable, but I wish him nothing but the best!

[@StickNik]

40:02 - Now I'm thinking of objective/subjective like a buffet. The table has a bunch of different platters representing parts of the film. The objective view of the film is everything there, but each viewer takes different amounts of each food, and tries what they took to see if it tastes good or not.

[@BrennanCh06]

Right, and if the table has only a bowl or perfectly cooked potatoes and then dozens of platters of underdone chicken, JW is the guy saying he loves the potatoes and wondering why everyone thinks the buffet *as a whole* sucks.

[@supershadey09]

@@BrennanCh06 Better not be bloody Shepherds Pie!

[@khodexus4963]

I've actually gone back specifically to analyze that scene you mentioned from Jurassic Park, and it's not the same paddock. There was some slightly fiddly stuff going on with the editing, but the T-Rex comes out of one paddock, then knocks the jeep into the paddock across from the first one.

[@thinkwithurdipstick]

I love how Just Write is talking about all of the emotional themes that will be resonant in TLJ years down the road after its initial release. Here we are two years later and TLJ might as well be irrelevant. Normal people don’t think about it, to them it came and went. Most people that do still talk about it do so to mock it, save for the tiny cabal of people who think it was the greatest film of all time. It’s only going to go downhill from here, and given another decade the only time people will mention TLJ is when they’re telling their kids which film they shouldn’t watch.

[@castleaether1965]

It appears that Just Write's position stems from an inability to distinguish enjoying media versus that media's quality. Mauler and Wolf are trying to explain that you can enjoy a film; there is nothing wrong with that, even if that film is absolutely terrible. They do it all the time, if you think about it EFAP is nothing more than Mauler and Rags enjoying terrible takes that masquerade as criticism. However, JustWrite (and people who think in a similar way) is incapable of seeing this. For JustWrite, he suggests media is good SOLELY if it is enjoyed. This stance folds in upon itself once you have a single person (I hate using the one drop rule but it does apply here) say "I didn't like it, therefore it is not good media." The logic JustWrite used to defend his stance is the same one that someone else can use to criticize. It is yet another lap around the course that is objectivity and subjectivity. Subjectivity has no basis because it changes from person to person. Objectivity has absolute basis, regardless of how it is interpreted.

[@jonbaxter2254]

I just hate the arguement that objective things don't exist. They do, and fannying about like JW does is painful to hear.

[@massivetism]

I love how there are multiple points where JW tries to laugh off what's being said, if he's not doing that then he just says "ok let's just agree to disagree lol". It's such a petty shield that he throws up, and a pretty ineffective one at that. Don't be like this.

[@Ladenstarfish]

"I don't believe in your Robot." Fuckin' meta

[@sagiriizumi8079]

I teach university critical thinking and I cannot figure out what Just Write is talking about. You can argue for or against anything, but you find 1 solid point to base your argument and he doesn't do it. He simply disagrees for no reason. Nobody watches or reads anything subjectively. You have your feelings. But can you articulate why you like or dislike it? Finding plot holes IS valid because it demonstrates "structure," which is a critical analysis called STRUCTURALISM. Literary structuralism is examining the texts against books in a series, similar books and how 99% of channels criticize Disney Star Wars.

[@10MLaw]

"I Hate the Eagles to Mordor" Question because The Ring is drawn to power and eagles are very powerful. The Ring called to Gandalf, and even Boromir when they expressed the desire to 'hold' it Imagine what an eagle with all its power could have done to Frodo

[@Quikostdreggs]

I thought the only reason the eagles could pick up the hobbits in that scene was because Sauron was now vanquished, meaning they couldn't get to Mt. Doom while he was still in power. Is that correct? I've been trying to find a LotR fan that knows more than me to ask this to for a long time.

[@dumbfish97]

The expanded world of LOTR has multiple explanations of the Eagle question but tbf its somewhat of a flaw that none of it is presented in the film BUT it has the same effect at the end like the Trex mauler mentioned in the debate. Nobody gives a shit what the robot says at this point because we are at a climax of a perfectly written character arc we have witnessed for 10 hours. So Tolkien obviously omitted spoiling this moment by explaining it, pissing off the robot but not the viewers

[@will_of_europa]

I have no respect for this oaf. Within the first 2 minutes he's stopped dead in his tracks, makes the smiley sigh noise, and proceeds to hastily search him mind for literally any possible string of worlds that makes him feel not wrong. People who argue for the sake of being right and not for intellectual advancement are idiots.

[@MrCantStopTheRobot]

Just Write seems like someone who'd dip down into New Age Goddess worship, or the like, while similarly calling it all just part of his evolution.

[@machine1685]

So how does JustWrite justify The Last Airbender being bad if someone out there thinks it is good?

[@vicksgreen]

Just Write brings up this idea that, “people don’t notice those sorts of things the first time watching. “ At the time I watched TLJ, my first time watching, I watch it on my phone while acting as a guard for a prisoner. The prisoner and I sat in a somewhat small hospital room. The prisoner was secured to a bed but watching TV comfortably. I watched TLJ on my phone and throughout most of the movie I was confused. Now I took short breaks a few times to watch the prisoner during his interactions with nurses, make sure he isn’t doing anything inappropriate, and such. But his need for their medical attention at that time was nearly nothing. As I said, most of the movie, I was confused. Everything was so disorganized. I could understand where they were, but how they got there made no sense. @JustWrite, I noticed this my first watch through. When it got to the part with Admiral Holdo, I had finally caught on to the likely “message” or “themes” of the film. I also realized I was approaching the ending of the movie. I started paying very close attention at that point and I started thinking of all the possibilities as to why she is acting the way she is acting. It made no sense. I can disagree with a theme or message in any movie, but the movie writers have the benefit of constructing the world to make nearly any message or theme make sense in that universe. Even by the made up world that Ryan Johnson got to construct it didn’t make any sense yet everyone in the film acts as though it does. Right before the “Holdo maneuver” was done (again my first watch) I thought this woman is as Narcissist & self absorbed character I think I’ve ever witnessed in a film. If she was force sensitive Palpatine would have been bored with how easy he turned her to the dark side. After the Holdo maneuver, I thought “wow film, so that’s supposed to tell me she’s a hero?” I realized then and there the reality that this film is garbage. Objectively bad if you will. I realized I wasn’t confused because I missed something. I was confused because it cared only about pushing a message and didn’t give a damn about telling a story that made any sense. I watched the rest of the movie and my heart sank as I realized it kept getting worse. It never did a thing to bring itself out of this S whole it dug for itself to lie in. It only dug deeper and invited more to use the S whole for its main purpose. When the movie was done I slammed my phone down and said in an elevated volume, “what the hell was that crap?” The prisoner next to me was startled and meekly said to me “what? Did I do something wrong?” No, I said, “It’s not you. This Star Wars movie I just watch. What a load of crap. This has very possibly ruined Star Wars for me.”

[@noisegavot9473]

Just write's argument that convincing someone that something is objectively bad will make them subjectively hate it is ridiculous. Even if I watched all the reasons why pizza is bad for my health I'd still understand that knowledge and eat it anyways.

[@r.e.z9428]

Take a shot every time Just Write says Right.

[@jonbaxter2254]

I died at the 20 minute mark, and I have a liver like the Critical Drinker

[@Blank_Face]

Just Write is putting the word and concept of 'art' on a high pedestal, if I were to guess why, I'd say it's because Just Write went to a school to learn English Literature so to raise the emotional value tied to that learning, they think of art as a high concept when in reality art is just creative expression, it doesn't need to serve a high purpose other than a person or multiple persons have an idea in their mind(s) and going through with presenting and creating that idea in their mind(s).

[@quentondaniels8536]

Wolf, you are missed mate. 👊🇦🇺

[@CrazyShepard]

This is almost the exact argument i've had recently. I stand by the fact that technical issues with the writing/cinemetography/etc.. are objective qualities when discerning how well the person succeeded in doing what they set out to do. You are entitled to how those things affect you, can't argue with that, but there are still rules that are set in place to make sure your end product makes sense from it's own standard. If you use a Dutch Angle improperly, you give the wrong feeling and intent to the viewer and ultimately fail to achieve what you intended with the camera angle. Same thing can be said about writing, if you write characters in love, they would need to be appearing to act like they have feelings towards one another or your characters seem very stilted and awkward. :/

[@wushiba]

Mr. MauLer is a fucking beast when it comes to logical thinking and reasoning. I am also amazed by how he can remains so calm and collected after all the nonsense Just Write says to him. They are in a completely different league. MauLer destroyed him here in my opinion. Very well done, sir! edit: Also, funny how Just Wright never said that The Last Jedi isn't a bad film. lol. Even he, who likes the film, cannot defend all of its mistakes. To be honest, nobody could even defend half of them because that movie makes no sense.

[@beircheartaghaistin2332]

I like how he accused Mauler of equivocation... only to then follow up by equivocating the word 'subjective' from the philosophical definition to the literary definition over and over again. If written out syllogistically, his argumentation for his vague position is a total fucking mess 😂

[@TheSaladKing]

2 years later and it's time to run it back. Destroy this man's opinions again.

[@RebeccaJoArt]

This is painful... I’m only 15 minutes in and the mental gymnastics Just Write is attempting in order to not agree with these guys - redirecting the conversation/debate by causing confusion or playing dumb - is exhausting... “Robots don’t make art. People make art.” 🤦🏼‍♀️ I thought Mauler and Wolf were intellectually sound in what they were saying and trust their analysis! There are many different ways of looking at and appreciating or dissecting a film, I think that’s where these critics differ: Just Write likes taking the neutral ground (“all movies can be good!”) while Mauler and Wolf see films for how they logically are, quality-wise.

[@krat2242]

It is quite painful yes.. If only I could quiz JW about which script of a novel was better.. the First draft, or the Final draft. Would be funny to see him take a Neutral stance and basically tell the world that writing a good story isn't important, any story will do...

[@RandomCarrot2806]

Man, I had forgotten just how on the back foot Just Write was for the majority of this conversation.

[@B1RDSEYE]

Take a shot every time Just Write says “right” as a question. You’ll die.

[@tomievader]

The biggest thing from this debate that bugs me is the horrifying notion that objectivity is so "icky" in conversations about art that someone would outright ignore the notion of it when determining a film or work's quality. Why go to art school and learn anything when you can make an objectively bad piece of work and get points in the feels department? You know what happens when someone throws objectivity out the window? Shoddy fan fiction where the people don't matter and everyone does out of character hijinks. Objectively nothing makes sense and the entire thing is a wash plot-wise, but hey you feel good cause your favorite character had to wear a dress. That's the Last Jedi on a fundamental level. The movie takes points from a universe with set rules and bends them to it's will to make a scene or impart an emotion on the audience. It is a depressing star wars fan-fic that paints the end of the rebellion, with a post script that summarizes the story as "Convoluted mess of elements from Empire and Return but with more cg, less consistency, and green milk"

[@FellishBeast]

Is this guy a pokemon? He says his name a lot... "Write?"

[@CarlosCMTF]

The whole "failure as a teacher" allegedly symbolic element of TLJ is such a basic and poor idea to transmit - we can call a truism! Almost every story in movies or books has the narrative structure of failure: the main character goes through some sort of problem/conflict that implies the failure of that character. And in the end, he/she learns how to deal with that problem and becomes a better person because of it. So, to say that TLJ is special because os that symbolic element is not saying much.

[@Kwistoweeish]

My favorite parts in these debates are the stumped silences. Well done, lads!

[@teddyharvester]

I've witnessed many a time since these momentous words that evolving as a critic was used as a substitute for doing a 180 on The Last Jedi. I don't know what this movie does to people. Somehow where in other films they would see obvious flaws, they become selectively blind and only see themes.

[@srj34]

The Last Jedi is seen by its advocates as a powerful bulwark against a traditionalist perspective. Star Wars is steeped in classic hero tropes - and those tropes invoke certain cultural mores that postmodern education absolutely abhors: Why is the princess in distress, why can't she be the hero? Why must the man be the hero? Now, invoking tropes isn't necessarily an endorsement of said tropes but this is how the postmodernist sees it. And they realize that they cannot create an original work that will earn a tiny fraction of the audience Star Wars routinely gets upon each release, so they slap a Star Wars label on a postmodern work in order to sneak their ideas, Trojan Horse-style, into the greater culture. "See? The girl can be the hero too! What do you mean it doesn't make sense? Nothing does. Literally everything is relative."

[@teddyharvester]

@@srj34 Well sure, I get all that, even though Leia in A New Hope completely curb-stomps that post-modern narrative the moment she's actually let loose from her cell by being arguably more competent at saving herself than Luke and Han are, with all that was standing in the way of her doing most things independently were the locked door and lack of a gun (rectified moments after the door's unlocked). And it's not even like she's in distress for the sake of being in distress. There's a clear cause and effect of why she's there, and even prior to capture she actively takes measures to secure her eventual (post-modernists gonna lynch me for the word) rescue. Which, if you would tell that to a post-modernist, would probably only cause a reaction of "see? Star Wars was subversive from the start!" Which maybe it was... Or... Check it: just simply written well. And, of course, the whole thing falls apart when considering the multitude of other well written heroines. But those were written before the dark ages of current year, so they don't count, apparently.

[@srj34]

@@teddyharvester First of all, I hope what I wrote didn't come off as condescending. (I'm in no position to condescend to anyone lol) I see your first post and use it as a jumping-off point, leaving my thoughts for those who hadn't considered these ideas. The thing is, I don't think postmodernist thought is inherently political; it's just a tool radicals use. I think it's comparable to the "atheist" versus the "Atheist": the atheist believes that a god or gods do not exist, the Atheist believes that theists are all stupid and that a proper atheist should have a certain checklist of other beliefs. I am an atheist, but not an Atheist. For me, if you don't believe god exists, you're in the club. For the radical postmodernist film critic, what Leia did in A New Hope is insufficient. A strong woman wouldn't allow herself to be captured in the first place by their reckoning, so everything that came afterward is irrelevant. And in the end, she wasn't even bestowed a medal, even though Han and Luke - the MEN! - were. What rampant sexism! Try to point out that Leia is part of the Alliance hierarchy and that higher-ups don't usually hand out medals to themselves and, well, now you're just mansplaining. (I'll admit, one moment that comes off extremely cringy is in the Death Star, when Luke is trying to retrieve the rope from his belt, he proffers the blaster to Leia and says, "Hold this." HOLD this? You can't say something like "Cover me"?) As for your last point, it's the apex of willing blindness, those people that think women weren't heroic in pop culture until the 2010s. Every other year, a woman in some tentpole movie is the first this, the first that, whatever. The more identity barriers they break in films, the more barriers they create. They have to manufacture some moment of IT BROKE NEW GROUND.

[@sts25186055]

I’d sum up the key elements of this debate (in the larger “themes versus objective quality” sense as opposed to the specifics raised here) as: 1) Movies are emotion machines - they exist to make you feel, and you watch them for that purpose. 2) Willing suspension of disbelief throughout the telling of a tale is a vitally important element in eliciting an unalloyed emotional response. 3) Plot structure and character consistency are vital elements in maintaining the willing suspension of disbelief 4) Franchised entertainment typically entails a greater creative burden (relative to a standalone film) to maintain a viable (non immersion-breaking) level of plot structure and character consistency given the prevalence of prior events and attendant lore/world building alongside well-understood character elements and arcs. 5) Different audiences will have markedly different thresholds at which objective plot structure and character consistency issues will impinge upon their willing suspension of disbelief. 6) A film’s explicit or implicit themes can significantly affect specific audiences’ threshold for the willing suspension of disbelief and/or their post facto emotional response to that film 7) Artistic elements which blur the line between objective analysis and subjective response (an actor”s ability to convincingly portray emotion, dialogue quality, visual effects, musical score etc) will impact audiences’ emotional response in ways that tend toward broad consensus but that will necessarily differ at the individual level.

[@biglenin7306]

Very nice to hear a civil and good faith discussion of peoples differences:) i really enjoyed this video!

[@alexdilley987]

It's just like what Bilbo Baggins once said: "Hello, Gandalf."

[@spenser9908]

“Yyyyooooouuuu’rrreeeeee LATE!” - Classic Bilbz Oh no, that’s Frodez.

[@Fang1st]

Thanks for putting it back up, this was a good one!