 You should be more concerned with creating art that is emotionally resonant than something that is like intellectually satisfying. You were doing what essentially me and Mahler do all the time with movies is we are the robot, essentially. And we pick apart what it's wrong with the movie on an objective structural level. So it's kind of strange to me why you just are kind of flipping the script and going from that to just kind of ignoring some of the similar problems that the last Jedi shares that you don't really seem to bring up with the last Jedi. Personally, I think it's about evolving as a critic. Hello. Oh, hello. There we go. How do you do, sir? Hi there. How was your day, Ben? It's actually been great. I've got to take an I've been able to take a break and watching you guys. So you guys don't like the video, eh? Well, that's not my favorite video. That's yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. No, I've been watching how much quite a bit, but I think you said it best. I think you're a quoting commentator saying that this doesn't have to be a debate. It can just be a conversation. So absolutely. You can just let the air out of the room here a bit. We would prefer that, to be honest. So yeah, I mean, you do you know our names at all? I don't. I don't. Because we we get mentioned a lot in the last Jedi sort of discussions. Wolf, I think has the highest viewed rant on the film on YouTube right now. Oh, I know your channels. I didn't know you're that's what I meant is you have heard of us then. Yes, I've I've seen the videos pop up. You haven't given them a watch of you for any chance? I've watched the first one of yours. The like your longer one. Don't think I watched the unbridled rage one. And I watched about I did watch the Dishonored Wolf one as well. There is any point in consolation I've known Mahler for like six months now. And I still haven't watched all of his videos on the last Jedi yet. It takes a few years to get through all of mine. Yeah, there you got quite a lot to say about it. Oh, yeah, I don't think I said in the series, but I've said it several times that I think last Jedi should be used in universities to like show how fundamentally broken a film can get from a script. It's like fascinating. Right. A lot of your points I find I guess is what I was like trying to get across in this video is like it depends on how you rank things, right? Like what you value, like because you're very oriented on like plot holes, right, are like very important. Can I make that like assumption? Like, well, is that is that a fair representation of your position? I'd go for consistency as a word that applies to character and plot, which essentially takes the whole script with it, then. Right. OK. Because, yeah, I think that's like where like most of the disagreements come from is just like like for me, like when a movie has a plot hole that doesn't bother me as much anymore as maybe it used to. Like when a movie doesn't quite fit in with its predecessors, that doesn't bother me as much as it used to. And I can totally like see those as being like derailing parts of this movie. But yeah. So what changed? Probably just doing this more, just like watching more movies and writing more essays, like the more you get into it. I don't know how to phrase this, I guess. But like I'm more interested in like what the underlying what part of a movie is, like what's the author attempting to get across like five years from now when all of the like surface level details of a movie become obscured once they get blurry, right? Like what are the things that are still left over? And like, I think there's a bunch of things in the last day that are pretty valuable and are going to stick around. So that to me is like a like a sign of quality. So like the idea that failure can make for a great teacher. I absolutely love that idea because it's very true, very applicable, applicable. But I think the film does an awful job of putting it forward, which is where my grievance would come in is funnily enough. I would probably defend that quote you showed in your video where the person said it's about the execution. I probably would go a bit more detailed than that. But yes, there is I don't particularly care what the message was. I would accept whatever was assessed by even Ryan Johnson himself. So like these are the things that I think my movie was trying to get across. That's what I was trying to do my writing. I'd be like, oh, that's that's fine. But, you know, you've got this year, this year, this year, this year. These are all the errors. I said I'd happily have the conversation with them because I don't know how he'd be able to defend the film from a position of what I would probably I don't want to be condescending, but reality like there are rules that you have to stick to in order to have a story be coherent. You can't just jump and, you know, I'm not even being metaphorical with that. Like the film's editing is a problem, among other things. You know, the basic assessment that the audience haven't assumption about where certain things are and then they are moved just so the story can continue is it's just cheap. That's like you wouldn't teach that in a writing school because that would be a mistake or it would be cheap. Brian, like I said, so the film has classic examples throughout all of the scenes and we've been over so many of them, me and Wolf are so many different people. And the usually comes down to whatever the message was in the film. Super seeds, any of these errors. And so the question becomes in that case, can anything be looked at as flawed? Could you just say this for everything? Well, it kind of depends on what you like what your goal is in critiquing it, right? And like what your what your goal is to get out of a movie. Like I totally understand like a lot of people going, you know, most people go to movies and they'll rank it on. Did I enjoy myself in the theater or not? Right. And like that's perfectly fine. Like that's the normal way to consume media. But there's like a whole other group of people who are, you know, like myself, who are just, you know, going to read things again and again and again and like look into it. And we're just going to get a lot more value out of it having some more substance to it. Like I felt like The Force Awakens doesn't have a lot of like it's not a very interesting movie to me because it's just doesn't have a lot of substance. But like to your point of like, can you make mistakes? Right. If like if like I see how you're taking away from my video that like if everything's interpretation, then like, can you make mistakes? And like the answer is like absolutely. But for certain audiences, right? Like I have three videos on my channel that are just, you know, talking about The Last Airbender, right? Which is a movie I absolutely loathe. But there's kids who go into that movie and get a lot out of it, right? It's like a lot of fun for them. So like the mistakes that are made are just they're like they're not being absorbed by the audience at all. So it's like it's a different thing. These things are, you know, it's it's super nuanced. So anytime we're watching an Apollo launch and the ship itself exploded and your child next you said, I love fireworks. This is amazing. Would you tell them? Yeah, it is pretty good. But there is a different interpretation in which many men have just died and the technology has been wasted. But I understand that you enjoy it. So it's not really objectively a bad thing that's just happened there. Right. But that's that's not fiction, right? What is the distinction that would matter in this case? Well, I think I mean, I think you are attempting to like equate like a fictional story to an event in reality, right? Well, I mean, you could have a movie where that exact event happens and the kid could have the same reaction. Uh-huh. Right. And but there could be a different context to it happening in the story, right? Because like everything that's happening in a story is metaphorical, right? To an extent, like it's representative of something. Could you not make that argument for reality? I don't know. I don't think so. So you can't interpret events on the planet as something else? Spiritual, maybe, right? But like, see, I get like what you're you can like you can absolutely do that, right? I mean, what you're what you're trying to get at here is like you would be wrong, right? Like if you like if if the Northern Lights happened and you think that it's X thing that's happening, you're incorrect, right? Yeah. I just like just like definitive set of science behind it. While someone else could be like, well, that's God reaching out to us. Right, right. But I just I just think stories just operate at a at a different level. I don't know if I can fully articulate what that level is, but I just don't think it's kind of like a useful comparison to be like, well, to like what if it's happening in reality, right? Because it isn't it's fiction. Well, as Wolf, just that you can just have the same scenario but in a film, if that makes it easier to understand, right? And like so my like my background is like I come out of English literature, right? And if you were to write an essay for like analyzing a book, right? You do have to back up your position, right? Like if you're making a thematic analysis of any kind of text, like you have to come up with evidence, right? Like that's that's important in order to convince someone else that it's the truth, but it's still like it's still a true fact that it's true for you. Right. I wouldn't deny that, but that's what we would separate is subjective versus objective. Until your claims have any kind of evidence proof or argumentation, that's all they are. They're just they're still subjective though. They're still subjective. Like even if you put a like you can put like a even if you can get together the most airtight argument that such and such a movie is about such and such a topic, it's it's still not objective. It's still subjective, right? Why? Because it depends on well, first of all, because other people can still you can always levy in a counter argument to these kinds of things in English literature, right? And and like that little diagram that I had in this video about like the work, the universe, the artist in the audience, like those things are always changing, right? So it's always changing in the moment what a text means. Like, you know, there's a bunch of movies that have changed contexts just because of the Me Too movement, right? Like you you don't look at you don't watch the usual suspects in the same way today than you did 10 years ago. Because it's impossible because it becomes getting space. Yeah, like that would be see it. But OK, so to give you context for that, like I'm a huge, huge fan of Kevin Spacey's work, same for a friend of mine who would have probably said he's his favorite actor, you know, bar none. But after all this has happened, it's a lead it a bit and he can't like separate that from the actor. However, if that friend was to argue that the usual suspects isn't as good a quality movie now, thanks to knowing that Kevin Spacey has done what he's done. That would be a subjective argument for the quality of the film being reduced. It's not objective at all. It has nothing to do with the actual film whatsoever. It's just like cultural impacts or metanarratives. There's there's plenty of things going on. I don't deny that. But the film is the film. So if I say, for example, point out how phasma disappears and reappears during the last Jedi, you don't come back to me with. Well, I don't think that that is an editing mistake. I see it as a stylistic choice. It's like that's invalid. I mean, you can think it, but it doesn't make it true what I. OK, but that's a little different. Like a description of the plot is a little bit of a different thing than like an analysis of quality or theme. Well, an analysis of a theme would would you you did it in your video. You had a couple of examples. You pointed to Finn and Rose getting caught in the base as a failure. You use the word failure and it's interesting to think about because what do you think is deep about it? The fact that they failed to complete their mission or what is in any way a lesson or is interesting or is thematic about that? Actually, I think you I think you might have misinterpreted what I was saying at that point in the video, because I was just kind of like listing things that happen in the movie. Right. I wasn't like making an argument that like the movie is deep because these things happen. So what was the point? Just that it happened, right? Like I just let's just I'm trying to like think of something that we can both grab on to. So did you hear what I said in response that like it's a really they get caught for no other reason than a random droid spots them. Do you see that as good writing? Do you see it as bad writing? Do you see it as it's neutral? It's just that is writing. That's just there's nothing wrong with it. It's nothing right with it. That's something that happened. The writers decided that is something that would happen. Yeah, there's better, more character motivated ways for that scene to have happened for sure. My assessment is that it's cheap because the writers would have been on the script and to be like, right, we need them to get caught. How are we going to do it? Droid season, sweet moving on. Well, you know, yeah, perhaps you're agreeing with this. Like you could have had a character reason for it. Like one of them gets I would try and make an argument, but there's so little character in The Last Jedi that I kind of think of what Rose could do that would be in line with her character that would cause them to fail their mission. Same for Finn, same for DJ, because we know bugger all about DJ, but you understand the point then. So if you can break down aspects of the film as I did with the phasma thing and that just now, once you've done it enough throughout each of the scenes, do you not reach a conclusion? You see patterns, right? But if, but like it matters how much of a percentage. I'm trying to speak in your terms here, right? Like it matters how much of a percentage. Like that scene affects your overall assessment of the movie, right? Like if that scene blew it for you, if that's 50 percent of of your opinion, then it's, you know, you're going to have a different opinion than someone who just values something else more. Well, we spoke to I hate everything, right? And he said that there's only nitpicks about the plot that really are brought up. And so I said, OK, so the fact that all the Star Destroyers forget that they have hyperdrive during the chase, that's, is that a nitpick? And he was like, OK, maybe maybe that's not a nitpick. And I was like, no, it's a major plot error. That is, that's that's whatever you want to call it. Like, right, but I don't care actively. OK, this is what I'm saying, right? Sorry, I had everything understood it. And he was like, yeah, so the writers have actively said, we're going to forget this thing exists in order to tell our story. And so his response was, it doesn't bother me. And then I said, OK, it doesn't care that it doesn't bother you. This is a fact. It doesn't give a shit that you don't have a problem with it. This is the difference between objective and subjective. I don't get to tell you how I feel about it, unless I was trying to offer you my opinion on it. It's a thing that we both agree is a thing that happened. So we've got that one. We can move on to the next one. When you put them up on a big wall, like all these different things that happen, you get to the point where you're like, right. So factually, this film is, you know, littered with errors. Subjectively, it could be the greatest masterpiece you've ever seen. But objectively, we're looking at a complete mess here. Again, though, like it's it's just. Like that can be a problem of the film. But like it like for me, that is a total like that has zero impact on my opinion, the fact that they have hyperdrive. Right. Or I could say the same thing. Right. So then it doesn't factor into your equation then. Right. Not my subjective equation. But when I'm looking at, say, for example, I love the film and someone brought this to me, I have no choice but to say, yes, that is an error and that is a problem in the scripts. But me saying it doesn't bother me is almost like, OK, doesn't affect what we've just said because we're having this like two conversations at once. We're talking about the things that actually happen and what they're worth, you know, within the film with no other interpretation. This is literally just how things work versus how you feel about them. We don't care about how we feel about these things. We're talking about what they are and what they do. We can acknowledge that it's it might be a problem for someone else. Right. But it's a problem in their subjective lens. It doesn't make it objective that not to people. It is a problem. Factually, it has nothing to do with people. OK. How people interpret it. This is a whole of the conversation. There's a line being crossed and trying to bring you back. We're not talking about how people see it. Unless you're going to say that like everything in reality is based on just how we see things that nothing is like has a basis. We we're not going to that point, right? Like we all agree that, say, for example, gravity and different laws exist. Like there are things that you have to abide to when you're writing your story. These things getting broken are errors, whether or not you feel they are. Right. OK. Like I see like I understand what you're saying. I just don't really understand why this is such a problem because this is like every movie, right? Like every movie has some level of this. I suppose, but this is how it's like you can like you can go by and they are. Right. But I like the Force Awakens. I'd pause it has like just as much just as many problems from a plot level on like, well, those types of things. Like I'm sure you can just give you an idea. My next series is going to be on the Force Awakens and my script is currently longer than the one for the last Jedi. So right, perhaps you're right. Perhaps you're wrong. It depends. The one thing I'll give you is Jurassic Park, very much a favorite film of mine. The the T-Rex walks in through his paddock, through the gates. And then later on, that paddock becomes a cliff edge that the targets dropped off. That doesn't make any sense at all. And it's there because they wanted to have the dramatics of the T-Rex entering the area and then the dramatics of the heroes being pushed off the cliff, but they said, fuck it, we're just going to put them in the same place. Hopefully people don't notice. However, that's that's one. It's like, how many more can you name from Jurassic Park? It's like, it gets a little bit tough. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it does affect the quality of the film. There's no denying that. The last Jedi, like I've given you a hand. But it actually. OK, sorry to you. You can finish that point there. I was going to say the last Jedi is in, like, I want to say the hundreds in terms of issues. Right. But like, just back to the the Jurassic Park stuff, like, like the scene is better from like a visceral, like emotional, suspenseful perspective because they've made that little switch, right? Like it's movie magic there that you forgot a little bit about the geography of the scene. And now the scene is better. Again, like it's action, right? It's better subjectively if it's giving you those feelings that's absolutely fine from an objective standpoint. It's not for most people who watch that scene, right? Like it's very suspenseful. It's one of the best to spend scenes. There is a reason I described it as one of my favorite films. I didn't say it was one of the best films. Yeah, OK, because that's two different things. Yeah, the objective robot who's judging these films is not going to give a crap if I say I still love the scene. He's going to be like, I understand that we're not talking about that. And then I go, OK, and then what I can do is say, no, it makes sense because it was two different parts. And then we look at the scene and it's not and I'm like, shit, OK, fine. And the robot is like, see, so we agree. This is objectively an issue. And then I go, yes. And then the robot tallies the the overall points of Jurassic Park. Actually, lessons from the screenplay did a video on it yesterday or today. It was very good explaining what the best parts of Jurassic Park are. And they, you know, the bad pales compared while in the last Jedi, we've got what I would happily call like 95 percent just rotten in the film in terms of bad writing. Mm hmm. Right. But like, I'm seeing you kind of come back to to this point a lot. And I just don't understand why you feel the need to, like, separate out what your viewing of the film is versus what your, like, the robot, like, yeah, as what the yeah, the robot, right? Like it's so that we agree. Why set of constantly fighting, as I know how altruistic that sounds. But I'm not kidding when I say, like, it makes conversation so much easier. Because if you tell us last Jedi's masterpiece, because these amazing characters, blah, blah, blah, and then we come back with. But that doesn't make sense because this is this. And you go, OK, both of our interpretations. I'm like, whoa, we have our interpretations. But let's see which one actually lines up with the facts. We can agree on it and then go home. So, for example, you know, hold on, not telling Poe her plan. Do you like do you genuinely think that that's like fine? Yeah, yeah, that doesn't bother me at all. So is it would your reasoning be because she doesn't trust him? Yep. So why doesn't she tell anyone else? We don't know who she tells. OK, right. Why doesn't she tell him the plan once he knows that the transports are being fueled? What difference would it make? Hmm. See, this is interesting because like I don't like I'm not going to have like this is so I'm not going to have. Yeah, right. We'll just we can put a pin in that. The process I was trying to do with you there is I'm being the robot for now because you don't know how I actually feel about those scenes. Maybe I feel it's not actually an issue. Maybe I could argue it for you. I could have I do it in my own video to try and make people feel I'm on a more of a level playing field. For example, she didn't tell him because she was testing his his ability to take orders. But then my follow up questions that would have been so why didn't she do it when he held her at gunpoint and threatened the lives of the entire ship, which I don't have an an argument for because it is absolutely ridiculous that she doesn't do it at that point. That's the breaking point in which you're going to sacrifice the entirety of the resistance just to prove a point about pose recklessness. Are you kidding me? Right. Maybe I don't know like. See, this is interesting, right? Because for me, like none of that stuff shows up in a first viewing. OK, maybe or, you know, like that's really how you're making a movie is like it's OK for those little details to not quite add up in retrospect to a degree, right? And most of the audience will overlook them like most of the time, right? That's why, like most like this right people rather than the robot, though, right? But I'm not. I don't really believe in your robot, right? Is this kind of what I'm saying? Because like no one no one makes a move like no robots make art, right? Art is made by people and no one would use. That's not what I'm saying at all. So there are films that can stand up to the robot. There are films that have scripts that the robot says this is actually excellent. Besides, I just the robots analysis of Infinity War, for example, would probably be that it's like a six or five out of 10. There are enough plot issues to harm it. But there's so much work for the characters that has been done and established and worked on throughout the series that it's undeniable quality. Mm hmm. There are contradictions in the last Jedi's work with the characters. That is some of the robot can't abide, but plenty of people can absolutely. And I'm not trying to devalue opinions because plenty of people want to just, for example, Incredibles 2 came out and those of my fans are asking me what I thought of it. It's like, for one, I'm not seen it. I don't really plan to see it at all because I don't necessarily care. But if I had seen it, I probably would have been like, yeah, I liked it, I guess, and they'll be happy to know that they'll be like, yes, he liked it. And it doesn't mean anything really. It's just my perspective. What they like about my channel is the robot part where I rip everything down so you can actually see what things are actually making you feel stuff. Right. And that's negatives. Right. And that's like a fun thing to do as, as like a form of criticism, I guess. But like, again, it's just, I feel like the kinds of movie, like the kind of perspective you're advocating for would just make for really boring art. I have a question about that. Um, so I've been watching your videos for a while. I started around like the second Hobbit video, I think. And yeah, so what I really liked about your Hobbit videos and with your, like you mentioned before, uh, your, uh, last airbender videos is because you were doing what essentially me and Mahler do all the time with movies is we are the robot, essentially, and we pick apart what it's wrong with the movie on an objective structural level. And I know that you have done that. And that's some of my favorite content that I've seen on your channel. So it's kind of strange to me why you just are kind of flipping the script and going from that to just kind of ignoring some of the similar problems that the last Jedi shares that you don't really seem to bring up with the last, with the last Jedi. The Hobbit shares with that movie. That is. Sure. Yeah. I mean, that's a valid question. I mean, personally, I just, like, I think it's about evolving as a critic. Um, it's not like, not to say one, you know, there's there's different ways of looking at things. And it might not be a, an automatically a, like a greater evolution, but for me, it's just more rewarding, um, to look at a film through the subjective lens. And, you know, you're just, you're reflecting on what your emotions are in a film as opposed to, you know, it's, it's, it's fun to make those kind of videos, the Hobbit videos, right? Like, and it's cathartic to watch them, especially if you didn't like a movie. But I also kind of feel like to a point, it's a little bit unhealthy. And I think, like, YouTube is kind of filled up with a lot of, uh, that kind of content. Um, this is why I think, like, like Cinema Sins is, you know, like, kind of, uh, um, a bit awful. Yeah, it adds, yeah, but it's coming from that. Me and Wolf do not fucking think that he makes good videos. Like, I wouldn't care if he's listening to us right now, he, he blends jokes, comments, just in general, that have no relevance aside from being comments with genuine criticisms. And he puts them all into a sin counter. It's the most confusing analysis I've ever seen, at least with us will be consistent. We'll be like, okay, this is a serious point that actually has repercussions. And this is something, you know, kind of funny that we thought about, if, you know, if you think about this, yeah, you know, separate it out a bit, but he's just like, there's no lap dance in this scene. Dang, you're like, uh, he'll be like, oh, the logo was 25 seconds. Like, who gives a shit about the fucking logo? No one. Yeah, yeah, exactly. But, like, but also, like, that entire perspective of just like, you know, his channel started as let's find all the plot holes, right? And even that alone, I just think is like, you know, not, you know, it's not very interesting criticism. It's, it's just, you know, they're just plot holes, right? Like, there's more interesting things going on in a piece of art than, like, whether it perfectly lines up with reality. Sure. I think that almost a similar, similar motivation behind what I do as you seem to, for what you do, I think it's a problem in reverse. I think that blending the idea that a film is just good because you can interpret it as good without actually paying attention to the script harms genuinely good scripts and it confuses viewers who are trying to learn the difference. So you have something like The Last Jedi being put on the same pedestal as anything that was, you know, why not? Because they're both new. Infinity War has so much work put into conclusions for characters and payoffs while The Last Jedi is just like noodling around being like, this is happening, this is happening. They're doing this for this reason. If you interpret it enough, it'll be good. Why make good films anymore? Why work hard on scripts when you can just, you know, shit out on a piece of paper and somebody online will find it good in some interpretation. So well, that's that's not that's not what I'm saying, right? That's not what I'm like, I'm just saying, like, you should be more concerned with creating art that is emotionally resonant than something that is like intellectually satisfying. So in that case, is important though, if you if you don't agree with everything from the robot, for example, he says, this is this is this is these are all issues, you go, none of them bother me. You'd be like, well, that's fantastic for you. But the robots just explain why it doesn't work for so many other people. And until you fix those problems, which you can, I think I heard you say earlier that like, art that would satisfy the robot probably wouldn't be very satisfying or something like that. Is that yeah, that's to me, that's utter nonsense, like two minute or two, for example, it would please the robot massively outside of maybe one or two issues. This is this is my crux of my point. Picture the robot on the scale between zero and 100. For every floor, it knocks it down by one peg. So do you think the 80 percent would not be counted as a pretty great film? Because I would be like, shit, man, that's that's a good score to reach. And you know, plenty of films get over that. Is there no film you've watched and thought, yeah, no one is going to be able to poke a hole in this as a tight script? I don't have like an example like right off the top of my head. But what what are you thinking of? Well, have you seen in Bruges? Uh huh. Yeah. So what what would you say is a plot hole or an error or some kind of inconsistency in that film? I have no idea. It's been a while since I've watched that movie. So it's absurdly simplistic. Two guys go to a town. Another guy comes in later. There's a gunfight. That's the end of the film. And you could be like, well, then, you know, it's like, ah, it's about the characters. It always is this with the quality lies. The plot is tight. The plot is simple. And it would score high with the robot, but someone could come along and be like, well, I hated it. And then someone could explain why it's like, well, it's boring. Two characters spend so much time doing nothing in this town. It's like, why? Why would I care? It's like, that's absolutely fine. But objectively speaking, it's it's got shittons going on. And you'd analyze the scene showing all of the the imagery and parts of the dialogue that are revealing to you the history of these two characters over time. And then that person can be like, well, well, I found it boring. It's like, that's subjective. Try again. And then they go, OK, well, it contradicts because at one point he says this and another point he says this and the robot is going to throw that line or that declaration against the actual film and see what's right. And then it's like, OK, actually, no, it does make sense. And then the person again is stuck because they didn't like it, but they don't actually have any objective reasoning. So they have to give up and say, I just don't like it. Personally, I just don't like it. And the robot is like thumbs up. That is absolutely fine because that is subjectivity. Right. But OK. But like, if they don't have an argument for why they don't like it, right? Then they probably just haven't dug deeply enough. Well, they're biased. No, but that's exactly it. Right. Like they're biased because the particular that particular story doesn't resonate with them as a person. Right. Like everyone's biased. And that's, you know, if you have a complicated relationship with your father, then you're going to react more like or react deeply to movies that are about that, right? You can call that bias, but that's also like why art exists is to like explore that to give you a better understanding of like the feeling that you already have. And like, I think we're just going to have to like agree to disagree here because I just don't find any I don't find any value in discounting that. Like that is like so much more than we haven't discounted it. We just described this objective. Well, I have something to go off of that that a father example you just used. So let's say that you had a girlfriend that cheated on you with your best friend. Could you not by that same account say that the room resonated with you? For having pretty much the exact same theme, even though that movie is objectively horrible? Right, right, exactly. So I wouldn't I wouldn't describe it like. I don't like using like the word objectively is just it's very it's it's tough to use that word in regards to art, right? Because yes, there's always that one person who's like actually I like it because of such and such a reason this happened in my life, right? And then it's not objective, right? It's not objective if one person disagrees with it. Let's stop there. So I don't agree that the star that we all bit around is called the sun. Therefore, it's not objective. I don't agree that the world is round. Therefore, it's not objective. I made this. You need a need an argument from art. That's the thing. You can't just you can't just use scientific backs to disprove an artistic argument, right? Like I had this argument with the right opinion and he's extremely pedantic and I'm going to say intelligent. I like the guy a lot. His response to that was science uses objective definitions. And I said back to him, you have definitions in art for many of filmmaking processes. Right, they're always shifting. Name one that shifted. There's plenty of like. And I already have an answer for that, even if whether or not you can come up with an answer. But I just like by saying that Pluto was a planet. Now it's not. Then it is science changes definitions as well. OK, that's this is really funny. But I mean, like, you know, there's certain sense like like cinematography and like the emotions that you get out of it shifts over time. Right. We're not all about emotions, though. Composition can be objectively assessed. For example, the focus on a frame you could have everything is blurry throughout the whole film. You don't get to go. That's objectively good filmmaking. Like, no, it's out of focus. That is bad. OK, right. But like a certain technique that you could use could shift over time, right? Like people could have different emotional reactions to how like a hard zoom in, right? If that's you, if that's used, like if it's overused in the context shifts, right? So like the technique that you're using suddenly has a new meaning, right? And these things are you have an objective argument leading to feelings. You'd be like overuse results in negative emotional reactions. It's like you can actually prove why be like repetitive strains. Just like there you go. OK, right. But like. But like it does change over time, right? Feeling emotional arguments. I just like I don't disagree with you, but this has nothing to do with objectivity. Yes, these people do interpret things differently over time. Right. OK, well. Well, I think we're kind of getting we're getting like a little too like esoteric here, where it's like, you know, I'm not going to like I really just can't share your your opinions about how to describe something as objective in art, right? Well, like I got an example for you. So I mean, obviously I can like point out a surter from Thor Ragnarok and I think he looks fucking hideous. Mahler doesn't really have a problem with it. So that's like obviously subjective. I can't exactly measure what makes it look bad, aside from comparing it to things that I think look better. But if we're talking about just writing, if I say Yoda using lightning as a force ghost makes no sense and breaks a lot of fundamental rules in the Star Wars universe. And I say, well, if he could you that if he could use lightning in the past, then why didn't he just go to end or use lightning on the big shield generator and then just lower the shields for the rebels ahead of time? Do you think that's an objective problem or a subjective problem? I still think that's a subjective problem because you could come up with reasons for why he's using lightning now and he's not using it then. You don't need the film to answer every single question, right? Like. You don't feel the script almost responsibility to account for these things. No, like it's it's magic, right? Like the force is magic and now it's magic. Couldn't force couldn't force ghosts have stopped order 66 from happening in that case then? If it's just magic, right? But you but you can say that maybe the force ghost didn't have that power back then. And now, you know, maybe Yoda is getting stronger in the force as he stays, right? Is you want to use it to help them in the film then? OK. You only use it on the island? Sure. Sure. I mean, like that's a question for you to ask. But like, you know, we're kind of getting to the, you know, why don't they just take the Eagles to Mordor kind of argument, right? But that is valid. Right. But the actual response there is that like the Eagles don't want to interfere with with the realms of men, right? Like that's the answer. Well, that's there's quite a few different answers to it, but. Right. But maybe the force ghosts have, you know, a philosophy of only interfering to a certain extent or maybe they can only exist for a certain period of time. Like they can only be there for a few minutes at a time, right? I like this, though. It's good because you're actually like countering with objective stuff. So because these things, if they were to be established as rules, would actually counter what we're saying. So but they haven't been, right? And I don't think they ever will because I don't think they're going to actually care enough to do it. But what about just the fact that you can come up with this kind of stuff, right? Not always. Right. Not every scenario has an answer for this. OK. So why didn't they use Hyperdrive, all of the Star Destroyers in the fleet? Yeah, I don't know. Because you're going to tell me like they didn't have the fuel. It's like, why? How are they there? Yeah. And if the ship is faster than they are, then how did it not outrun them? Oh, people have argued against that. They said that it stayed at a speed that put it faster than them, but not outrunning them because they need to conserve fuel. See, unless they never state that, but it it passes. Right. It's not good because it's never stayed in the film, but it passes as an assumption. Like fine. There are way more errors you could go over. And this is the process. You you would eventually come to a conclusion. It's like, OK, we've been through every event in the film. All the characters for Star to Finish and the plot. And it's like you you tally up all these issues and then you come to your conclusion. And that's the robots way of doing things. And then at the end of it, I'm like, yeah, you know, personally, I felt that the film was X, Y, Z and a lot of the stuff that I've stated would have made me feel that way. But it's all like we're in a round table and we get all the facts on the table and then we all have our own take away from it. That that's the line that's crossed. That's the the interesting part of the dissection, if you will. My subjective assessment of a film really lines up with the objective one. It could be close, but it'll really be like one for one. OK, then right, then I think we're like. To me, I think we just disagree on like how important it is to even acknowledge the robot that you've set up here, right? Like because to me, like if you put all of these problems into the into the robots, you know, computer, you're multiplying them by zero, right? Because it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the film, right? So to me, it's just it it kind of like it's fun to to think about those kind of things after the fact, but like in the moment, it's not changing anything for me. So I just don't. I just don't see it as like the main form of criticism, right? So there's two things. First one is the right opinions conversation. We ended with him saying, why bother? What's the point of this anyway? Why even bring this into the conversation? And so I went at him for a good 10 minutes, explaining like essentially my start to where I am now in terms of analytical conversation. And I'll just I can reference your video. People are going to discuss your video as they should. And they'll assume that it's like these are valid reasons for why I felt the way I did. It's like, for example, hold on not telling Poe the plan. In your first video, you said that she didn't trust him. You know that you played a clip. You're like, see, that makes sense. Like, but then someone could easily challenge that and be like, yeah, but you know, why didn't you do XYZ here, there and there? And so the person you've just told that to is like, oh, yeah, it does make sense. Sweet. I did like this film and it was a good film. That's that's the process complete. I'm happy. But if you'd accounted for, you know, all the counter arguments, which again, you're not the only person who's done this. I hate everything has admitted to me and Wolf that he's like, yeah, I regret making my video because he didn't account for shit tons of things that happen in that film. And you got a backlash for it. It's like it comes across as you actively ignoring these things. Conversation becomes so much more clear and to the point if, for example, I say to Wolf, I loved Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom. And then he's like, what? The film was awful. And then I go, oh, no, I understand the film was awful. But I really liked it. He'd be like, okay, that's strange. You usually don't like things that you can put this many holes in. I'd be like, oh, yeah, you know, for example, Batman and Robin. I actually enjoy watching because Arnie is so ridiculous in that film. And it's such a it's such a stupid film. It's like a so bad as good moment. I'm pretty sure Wolf loves the room. It's like one of his favorite films of all time. Yeah, I love that. We separate these things now because it makes conversation so much easier. Because if he just tells me I love the room, my brain is like, does he think the room is good? It's like, no, we're clear. The room is bad, but it's something you can enjoy because it's so bad. Like, and when you get to that point, if I was at that level with you, like of understanding, and then I watched this video, then you tell me that this isn't you saying the last Jedi is a good film. It's arguing what you got from it and why it made you happy. And I'd be like, oh, I wonder if that could be ruined. And that's another concept. There's a friend of mine who's refusing to watch rest world with me because I've told him that Westworld is bad. And I could prove it. If you watched it with me, we could go through how of the way. So he's like, no, I don't need to take away how much I enjoyed that series. And I was like, oh, okay, yeah, no problem. Kind of like funny. Everyone's different on this, you know, conversation. I just like it when we have everything laid out, understood, and then we move on to the next topic. So what makes discussion very satisfying to me, you can talk about how what you you gain from it. Well, like lessons or understanding like in terms of the failure as a teacher thing, because I am on board with it. I really liked that idea. I would just probably prefer it if it was executed a bit more consistently. That's all does all that makes sense. Yeah, no, I like I understand I understand. I think I understand your position. I had something really insightful to say here that I've kind of forgotten. Sorry for the sorry, the dead air. Yeah. I don't know how insightful it is, but I just was going to mention that I you know, I don't I think it's like a very high bar to set that you need to consider like every possible plot hole and like logical problem in the film before you can have a discussion about it, right? Like and that's kind of what you said here where it's like you want everything laid out on the table first. But to me, it's like it's it's more interesting to just have, you know, what like why try to think your emotions away is is what I'm a response to that discussion is for there's a friend of mine who I share very close perspectives with that he loves Iron Man three. I hate Iron Man three with a fiery passion. So we're setting up a time where we're going to be able to discuss it. We'll both watch it and then we'll both, you know, have a conflict of ideas and one of them is going to win. This is a person who's very on board with the perspective about objectivity versus subjectivity. We're going to come out of it as one of us is probably going to be like, OK, I was I did have a bit of awkward. I didn't have the right information on this. That's kind of how it goes. But I kind of like disagree just with that assumption, right, that one of you will win and that one of you should win, right? Like I use that way. I don't want to I don't want to like frame it as if it's a fight. Like I'm actually we don't look at it as a win loss. We look at it as a gaining knowledge, gaining perspective, right? And yeah, and no, like that's kind of what I'm attempting to do on my channel to write where it's, you know, I'm looking at these pieces of art and you're trying to figure out how this will help you write your own stuff in the future. You know, what are the principles that you can take out of it that will work, you know, most of the time in similar situations, right? Not all of the time, not in every situation. But, you know, to me, it's like if you convince him to not like Iron Man 3, then like that's a loss, right? Like, yeah, you've reduced now, but you've reduced the amount of enjoyment in the world, right? Like if my Hobbit videos actually convinced people to dislike those films, then like, like that sucks. Well, I don't think I think you're looking at it from the wrong point of view because if someone, when you point out like the bad things in something that you perceive to be good and someone's like, oh, yeah, that is kind of bad, I think that really kind of strengthens the enjoyment for the really good things. Like I personally hold the Lord of the Rings movies to be the best movies I've ever seen in my life and movies like The Last Jedi just kind of enforce why I love those movies so much because The Last Jedi has so many problems that just aren't even present in The Lord of the Rings films. And so when I see a bad movie and I know and I understand why it's bad, I think that helps make the good even better. It sounds like you'd be on board with the idea that we take all of the objectively good films and describe them easily to get people enjoying them for what they're worth and then take all the objectively bad films and kind of skew them a little bit to make people enjoy them regardless of their negative qualities, let's say. My concern would be I have no idea if The Last Jedi is going to be good. I go see it, then we talk about it through our scale and then we conclude not a good film. How everyone felt about it is, you know, that's up to you. You take away from it what you will. Someone really loved it and then watches my videos and goes, man, I can't enjoy it like I used to. I just be like, well, that truth hurts. I don't know. Like what else can you say? It's just like, yeah, you'll find something you'll love eventually. I'll make I could I made a video on Infinity War and people commented saying that, you know, previously they thought it was OK. But I have to see in this they were like, wow, you know, it's actually blah, and you could argue against my assessment. I would absolutely welcome it. But I was trying to be as objective as possible in explaining how the characters move from X to Y to Z and why that film is of quality. And then people can draw from the assessment emotions. You know, that would be a wonderful experience. But it happens both ways because ultimately we're slaves to the scale objectivity, truth, facts, blah, blah, blah. It's like you can't do anything about it. They're going to be bad films is going to be good films. We we take them as they come, right? Right, right. Just just something you were saying earlier, though, about. I think you were saying about like describing good films as good and then describing bad films and like looking for the good. Was that what you were saying? Well, I was a little bit more cynical about it. I was trying to say that you essentially misrepresent the bad film to make things good things come out of it. Right, because I don't think that's what I'm attempt that. Like I don't believe in that, right, because I'm not like I'm not lying about my opinion about I don't think that you feel you're lying at all. OK, OK, so I'm not going to offend you, right? So if I say that I'm I'm one is about the problems of communism, right? And that's my interpretation. I put that on my video. You'd be like, OK, I see why you think that's the truth. But that's not what the film is about. And I'd be like, what? You think I'm lying? And you're like, no, no, I think that you have bad information and it's by no fault of your own. Like, I'm not I'm not saying that you've deliberately ignored things or you're lying about all these things. I was like, no, we can have the discussion first to figure out what's going on. Because I mean, well, this conversation with I hate everything ended with I hate everything asking us, why do I like the film if it's bad? And it's like, well, now you need to have introspection, figure out what your bias is. We all, as you said, we all have them. What is my bias towards Batman and Robin makes me enjoy it. It's like, well, I kind of love our force and that's probably it. Like that explains it for me. I don't need someone to explain why the plot and the characters are incredible because I already know that you can have a really rough time figuring that out. Like it's it's a horrendous film, right? I think you're kind of you're kind of quoting my video back, right? Because like, one of the things I was trying to get across in that video is like, you're you should try to figure out what the context is in which you're watching something, right? Sure, but there's a right to from what I can tell, which would be no, no, no, no, no, no, no. And then in personal, I think there's like, there can be infinite context in which you're watching something, right? Like it's a different context for like someone who's just a fan of the prequels is going to have, you know, has a different context in which they're watching this movie or someone who's just a fan of or not a fan of Star Wars, right? Like all of those things categories in which these contexts fall into, they would be too. And OK, so you're saying it's out of those thousands. Objective was your two? Pretty much. OK, then I think they all fall into one, which would be subjective. Yes. Yeah. So what is the robot's perspective? I don't think that's just the thing. I don't think I'm not agree. I don't agree that the robot exists is what that would be a definitive floor in your perspective because I can guarantee you that for every film that exists out there, one person on this planet would have watched it as the robot would. They would have torn it apart. Me and Wolf did it with the last Jedi. OK, but that's still there. Like it's because of those. Like you've determined what the robot's values are, right? Like that we can't disagree on what the robot's values are because object objectivity is unable to be debated. But OK, but it's only objectivity in terms of does this make sense, right? Like that's the that's the question that the that you have the robot answering. Is there a problem? Well, yes, because that's not the question that I'm attempting to answer, right? Like you're trying to answer is this movie good and your robot is not asking that question. It's asking does it does this make sense? Well, I wouldn't I guess I wouldn't want to stop at good or bad. I would want to add quality on the end or script or filmmaking something instead of just an arbitrarily good or bad. When we say good or bad, we're probably talking about quality. Right. Quality is definable through the quality of the the actions that are being completed, right? Like why would these things be taught if they couldn't be improved, meaning that they can be bad and good? They can be bad and good in most contexts, right? Like like that's what you're trying to learn when you're trying to learn storytelling is like how does like there's such a thing as like conventional storytelling, but there's also just thing is like not convention like unconventional storytelling and it plays by completely different rules, right? Well, quite a few is an unconventional storyteller, but his scripts are still provably quality, but he's he's still pretty conventional, though, right? Like, sure. Like he he, you know, he has nonlinear stories, but they're still, you know, pretty conventional. What would you say an unconventional story? Like like experimental type movies, right? I don't I don't have an example like right off the top of my head for for you here, but like or like, you know, in literature, there's I'm actually planning like planning on doing a video on the anti novel, right? These are novels that are tempting to tell stories that, like, you know, don't have plots, right? Like that's unconventional and your robot would say like, this is a bad novel, right? Not necessarily. Maybe. But OK. This is why I need an example because then I could I be able to understand where you're coming from better. Because, say, for example, my robot wouldn't say the book is a book is bad because it doesn't have visuals or something. It depends on what you're trying to achieve here. Like if the project is a film telling a story, then yeah, there's going to be certain expectations, but like, I don't know, Enter the Void is an unconventional film by your standards, surely? I haven't seen that movie. It's essentially a film that's like looking at what it's like to die and it's very what you could call artsy. Trying to think of like anything. Mother. Yeah. Mother. Yeah. Or a race or that. Unconvincing, sure. But these films absolutely can be qualified objectively. Yeah. OK. We keep running into this this roadblock here, right? Because like I don't think there's a way around it here because like what you're terming on like objectively like I'm just seeing as another form of subjectivity. So there's, you know, like, I think we should try to like stop trying to convince each other of that point, right? Because it's like completely beyond like the movie, I guess, that we came out here to discuss or like your problems with the video that I had or if we can't reach that conclusion, then any argument we provide you can be shaken off with that's your perspective. I have mine and that ends discussions. There's no more to it. Nobody lends anything. Well, no, it doesn't, right? Because I can articulate my perspective and you can articulate yours and then we can take away what what the valuable things are from that, right? Like we can hopefully like enrich the other person's viewing of it to to a degree, but we don't have to like, I think you're you're you have a desire to like come to a conclusion of the conversation, right? And there is no conclusion. Like art is just endlessly talked about. It's we're still talking about the Iliad, right? Like it's like that's how this works. I mean, for example, Captain America Civil War have probably discussed that film more than any other film, thanks to the fact that it gets criticized for quality a lot. Well, I'll I'll defend it readily. Every conversation that ends with it in terms of like, oh, I didn't say, for example, you know, someone just says like there is no problem with Jurassic Park as a film. Then I bring up the fence thing to you. They have now got a benefit of knowledge. They don't get they don't get to say back. Nah, that's not a thing. It'd be like, oh, OK. It'd be like, you know, it doesn't bother me. That's that's a true fact. I'm not going to deny that. Yeah, they don't get to ignore it. Sure. And I'm not I'm not ignoring the like the complaints that conclusion that you information is introduced, accepted, concluded. Now move on. It doesn't have to it doesn't have to end the conversation about Jurassic Park or that scene. But that is that that is a conclusion. Information is passed on because this is the thing. I have information on the last Jedi sort as well, so does you. We all throw it up into the air and then which parts fall out because, for example, Holdo, does it make sense that she did what she did? It's like, well, compare all of our evidence against each other's. Someone's is not going to work because we contradict. Mm hmm. That's that's that's fascinating because it's like, ah, you've got new information. Now your perspective change, perhaps I did change your perspective by bringing up the mutiny part of it. I don't know. But it doesn't like whether or not it did change your mind. It is the truth until it's proven wrong, I suppose. But that again, that's no different than science. Right. Oh, yeah, it's OK. So it's the the theory that you have about a particular thing, right? But like, it's just and you said this to right, it's just it's it's you can still keep your own perspective that you had prior to that, right? And that's all that I'm kind of saying here with like with my video and with and that I've been saying here, right? Is that like, sure, we can, you know, you can find all of these problems with the movie, right? But for someone out there or, you know, or for me, right? Like, I had like, I had a I had an emotional reaction to that movie and right, like that's you're just not going to change that. I wouldn't want to take it away from you. That's only going to happen if it happens, right? Like, I don't that's not my intention to take that away from you. To give you kind of a funny example, like we may have had this debate with a guy before, I forget his name, but he was he was arguing to the death that the themes of the last Jedi elevated above standard criticism. And I think what he was trying to say is the whole, you know, I emotionally got this from it. You can't tell me it's a bad film, probably what he was going for. So I came back with, OK, what's a bad film? Like objectively, because he did believe in that sort of state and he was like, well, suicide squad is a good example. And I was like, well, you can you can gain a perspective about teamwork, you know, working with other people to overcome your own evils to defeat something that's far more important, something like that. And I was like, you can derive a lot of meaning from that film. Anyone could. I'm sure people did. I believe angry Joe loved that film, like he sang his praises. So I was like, you know, these people do exist. And he was like, well, yeah, but that that film is bad, though. And I was like, yeah, but you can still feel what you feel. It doesn't. And so he had to like basically understand the fact that he was just doing the same thing for the last year. And it's something that I wouldn't want to do. For example, someone says the infinity gauntlet in Infinity War doesn't really follow any kind of rule. And so it's really unclear what sounds could even do. That's making the stakes very confusing. I don't immediately go, well, I love the film. I go, yeah, yeah, that's true. Right. And it's annoying, actually, to think about. But he has a reality. So yeah, there's loads of stuff. We all the stones, we don't really know what the stones can even do. There's also the part where Thor just creates a weapon that's a Thanos killer. It's like, oh, that's that's useful. You know, that's not good writing. You're not going to catch me, but I still think it's a great film. And I have all of these objective references. It's weird that there's six of the gems, and one of them can control reality entirely and three of them can just shoot lasers. Yes. It's a little unbalanced and weird. The only caveat I have is that I don't know how you write that script, while also explaining all the rules of the gauntlet. I suppose there's ways around it, but it was a tough job, what they did. So you know, I have some concessions about it, but it's still flaws. They are flaws. I'm not going to deny that they are flaws. Yeah. I mean, honestly, I think they just should have they should have made the gems have zero power unless they're all together at once. Right. I think I probably would have gone with they each have one ability and they can only be used one at a time. And they're very, very clear with what the ability is. Like you can change the reality one ruin ship ship, man. He should have just used the reality one on all of them in the in Titan is but you know, like one portal at any one time is like, Oh, that's pretty clear. I can understand that I don't even know what the soul stone does. I don't think they really give a strong, you know, I guess he just needs it to delete the people from the universe because you can like their and that's the other thing, right? Once you get all five or six of them, what can you do? He can destroy half the universe. Like what else can you do? Well, like what you're just talking about, like it breaks every scene that he's in, right? Like every scene that Thanos is in after getting the reality stone is broken from your like robot perspective of like, does this make sense? Um, but you still like that movie, right? And that's like really just what we're kind of yeah, which is getting at here, right? You know, I have the my subjective part of it, but the objective qualities argument, it like I said, the film hits like a five or six if you really take these things in consideration, because there's plenty to talk about for objective quality. Like I said, I don't know if you agree with this, but a lot of people value character well before plot. So if you can nail character, which the MCU is relatively consistent on, uh, then you've at least done that. Like plot, plot screwing up is, is like the next thing. So the next important thing, make sure you nail the plot. So if they fuck that up, yes, the score goes down quite significantly. But again, it's out of my hands. I don't get to tell you that, um, you know, it's exempt or blah, blah, blah, the robot is, is something we can all employ. So you can tell me just like I can tell you, I agree. It's just what do you take away from, um, because I think we're kind of going around the same point here. And like, honestly, I think we like you're terming this something that I'm not going to call like, I don't think it should be called that, but like, I think it's we're kind of coming down to a semantic argument here. So like the objective assessment versus the subjective assessment? Yes. Yeah. I just like, I just think like what you are thinking of subjective or as objective is just isn't right. That's just where, where I'm at. But what do you, um, the argument that I have in this video about interpretive communities? Like, how does that like affect your thoughts at all? I thought it was a bit redundant because it's just like, yes, everybody sees the film differently. Everyone picks things differently or focuses on different things differently. That's why the objective robot guy is useful because we all we don't get to fight him. We all have the actually the argument though is that you don't see it differently. Right. Like you see it slightly differently, but like it's kind of interesting to me. I find it very fascinating, especially just like looking online, like what the conversation is around this movie, like the fact that people, you know, have fallen into a few camps of like, these are the things we find as problems, or this is what I take away from the movie. Right. Like that is more interesting to me than like anything that the movie is actually doing. Right. Like I think, you know, listening to you guys react to the video, I think you got like you guys were kind of you wanted me to kind of get on with the point, right? And get back to the last Jedi because I was like talking, like I was sitting. I felt like I knew what your point was before I watched the video, which is just going to be the, yeah, everybody has their interpretation. Right. Yeah. And I mean, it is it is that I mean, it is like, I'm kind of presenting it from like, like what someone in academia would present it as, right, so that you can actually like, like I was interested in kind of formalizing this for people so that they can have a discussion about it as opposed to like just endlessly arguing about it. And like to me, like providing that for a viewer is like more interesting to me than like proving the point about a movie. So like that's why all that stuff is there, right? Because I think that's like the actual like content of stuff or of my videos, right? It's like, sure, you can like you can disagree with me on like what my final conclusions are about a movie, but like hopefully I have like passed something else on to you. But I don't just to get back to like the interpretive communities part of it, like, you know, to me it's kind of like an awakening when you realize that like, Oh, I'm in a like, you know, I didn't just like come to this conclusion. It's based on everything I've ever seen in my life and influencing how like what I think is good. Like if I was to rank the things that I think are important in a film, right? Like my ranking of things is it's made up by what I've heard from other from other people, right? It's like the concept of tropes, isn't it? We don't want to see certain tropes because precisely because we've seen them in other films. So if someone was watching the first film ever and it had loads of tropes in it, they wouldn't know. Exactly. That's exactly right. That's I completely agree with you. I suppose all that is said in response is like the way I came to this point was, you know, I've been watching YouTube since it started, loads of film critics. And the part that always got me is when, you know, one explains, yeah, I like it. The other says, yeah, I just like it. That's absolutely fine with me. Then when the guy says I liked it because of how incredibly well put together the conflict between Holder and Poe's. And then I'm like, OK, and I go to the next review and he says, I hated how badly put together the conflict between Holder and Poe's. And so I'm like, so there's got to be a conversation there, right? Like they're basing their overall emotion on an actual scene with actual tangible things that happen. So one of them has got bad information because it can't be both. Like it couldn't have actually been a good conflict and a bad conflict at the same time. So I want to see them talk and if their conclusion was we have a different perspective on it, like, OK, fine, you know, whatever. But if the conclusion was, oh, right. Yeah, OK, you're right. I didn't realize that that actually was that. OK. And then they both conclude, yeah, it was a bad conflict. But one of them says, but I enjoyed it still. Then that's there we go. We've learned we've moved on. We've analyzed that scene. Let's go and someone could come back in 10 years and say, both of you are wrong. You missed this detail. And then both of them go, oh, shit, the scene is actually very good. You know, this is all progress to me and it just assists the overall matter, if you will, of actually being able to critically understand content. Sure. Yeah. Like, I think you can do that in, like, a few situations. But, like, there's I think it's kind of limited, like, to the degree to which, like, that kind of conversation will happen. Right. Like, it's just the stuff where, like, if there's a plot hole and one person didn't notice it and the other person did, then they realized that that it exists and their views change. But, like, you know, to me, like, the way more interesting conversation in this movie is, like, how Luke is characterized and that's never going to get resolved in the way that you're describing it, right? Like, you know, if you have this plot of A to B to C to D to explain why it is you felt the way you did about Luke's position in the film and the others put together, but then we have a completely different interpretation. We share ours and the references for why we came to our conclusion that might change your assessment or vice versa. It's, like, it's possible that it could, right? But, like, it's not as definitive as your previous case, right? I'm absolutely happy to agree with that. For every single case, there's going to be a different amount of, you know, wiggle room. Let's put it that way. Yeah, like, the amount of blur that there is there is, like, it's just a completely different thing, right? Because it totally goes back to, like, who you thought Luke was before the movie started? Yeah, right? Well, as Wolf brought up, the whole, you know, does it look ugly? It's like, we don't have much information to go on. If I was a CGI artist who worked really hard on the film, or knew someone who did, and I can reference the wolf why it looks good in more definitive matters, he'd be like, OK, maybe you got me there. But until that happens, we're going to have to agree to disagree because we got, there's nothing we can do with it really. And, you know, everything has that level of understanding about it. You know how Star Destroyers work more hyperdrive is so we could get to that point there. But yeah, Luke, as you just said, who was he before the films? Who was he after the films? Is it a problem that we've missed 30 years of development? It's all all of a discussion. We could have that discussion if you want it. But it is important to get fundamentals out before we would get to details, I suppose. Yeah, I think and I think you're kind of like, I think you're kind of prioritizing the conversation around the the plot hole stuff, because like that, like, that's where your arguments are strongest, right? So like you're starting there because like you can construct a pretty strong castle around position, right? So we spoke to I had everything for five hours. The first point I made was one of those and a few other plot ones. And he was like, he was still like, yeah, doesn't bother me. Wolf brought in a few plot ones. Then we started going to character. We did it for a very long time. And we finally got him to go, okay, the film is bad, fine, like almost begrudgedly, but like calm down, talked about it a bit more. And he was like, hmm, like, yeah, okay, yeah, what I'm trying to say is that yeah, I'll start with the clean cut stuff. I usually go with editing first, because it's like some of the most definitive stuff in the last Jedi, you can't nobody can look at it and just go, yeah, that's that's not a problem at all. But then yeah, we move out because it, you know, it's it builds a structure easier if we start with the solid stuff, and then we move to the debatable stuff, I suppose, just so we establish that we both understand what an error is, if you will. Right. So that's what I'm saying, though, is that like that is like representative of like, of like what your perspective is on how to analyze films. Whereas like, for me, like if I'm going to have a conversation or, you know, or a debate, like I'd prefer to talk about the, you know, the Luke Skywalker stuff, right? Like I'd prefer to how did you feel get into that? Yeah. Yeah. And like in the like, I'm more interested in that because it's more of a debate. Right. So if you will, like to get really meta, I would consider that the payoff of your video as with mine and Wolf's. It's almost like the summary part of the video is usually the juiciest because you'll be like, I've just presented all this stuff to you. Now I can tell you what it did. So the end of my last Jedi critique, I think I just I go on a very large rant about the state of Star Wars, what it's done to me as a viewer, what it's done to many viewers and, you know, et cetera, et cetera, the infinity war one ends with me making an extremely emotional argument about how incredible the characters are and what they've done, what they've achieved. Like it's all very emotional. It's all very subjective. The point is that I put in the legwork first to get people there, right? So like, I do value that as well. Absolutely. It's it's really important, but I want to earn it. If that makes sense, or if that's the wrong word. Sure. No, I like I understand what you Yeah, I understand that. Because yeah, you're kind of you want to bring people into along with your argument. I mean, yeah, it's it's just how you're constructing how you're organizing your thoughts on on something. So we're going pretty long here. Is there something else you'd like to say? Oh, well, of course, I feel like you've been silent a lot. I feel bad. Oh, you guys were just on such a role. I didn't really want to interrupt you. Oh, yeah. Well, yeah, my apologies for that. Apologize for having a good conversation. Yeah. OK, well, I'm going to. This was a fun conversation. Good stuff. OK, I'm going to. I'm going to bounce. All right, all right. It was nice to meet you and have a good day. Yeah, it was cool talking to you. Yeah. Right.