 So permit me, if you will, to go on a rant about the state of video essays and reviews on YouTube these days. Star Wars The Last Jedi was panned quite thoroughly across much of YouTube, but since it is a part of such a popular franchise, it had plenty of fans remaining, as does anything with that kind of reach. At this juncture, however, thanks to months of discussion, most points have been brought to the logical baseline, with some who apparently haven't heard a single counter-argument still trailing to join the discussion. At the end of my assessment, I said that the film was overall objectively bad in terms of filmmaking. It is of poor quality. The utterly broken script was bleeding errors with every second of screen time that passed, and stating the conclusion at the end of the analysis is only natural. It can also assist in creating a scale for objective quality. Now, in relation to those who find my channel frustrating, there is an ongoing conversation about objectivity versus subjectivity. I have been made an example of by a handful of people as the channel who thinks his opinions are facts. Or to put it like he likes to, his opinions are objective. And the opinions of people who disagree with him? Well, those, those are just subjective. Isn't it so strange that people can't seem to get a quote from my videos that would even remotely resemble that statement? The idea that I tell people they are watching movies wrong, for example, when my discussions are always concerned with the facts you use and how well researched those are, versus the feelings you experience. Anyone is welcome to generate an objective opinion based solely on the measurable elements of the content, or they can generate a personal subjective opinion based on how they felt. But they are completely different conversations. You can't be wrong for how you experience something. And I'm not coming here to tell you that you're wrong, unless you are actually wrong about indisputable facts. You see, you can do whatever you want, however you want, feel what you want. Just don't tell me that an apple is a banana and expect me to say you are right by an objective standard. As you just heard, Patrick made a great point. But these same people purport that I make statements about denying someone's feelings or watching movies wrong, when they can't show it. Though if we reverse that accusation, I actually can use quotes instead of inventing them. So considering the amount of criticism objective analysis receives from these folks, and how abysmal the current state of hollow analysis is on YouTube, why don't we explore their style and see if it holds up against any kind of scrutiny? I know it seems impossible to watch movies wrong, but you're watching movies wrong. Oh dear, that seems contradictive, doesn't it? And I'm not coming here to tell you that you're wrong. Six months later. You're watching movies wrong. You're kind of watching movies wrong. This is what I end up hearing from the same people who believe they have more authority to speak on the subject of film analysis than others. And all those plot holes people complain about? They don't actually matter. The actual problems are that many of the central characters are totally static and poorly motivated, and the one major moment of growth is caused by a ridiculous plot contrivance. So plot holes in favor of payoffs don't matter, but plot contrivances in favor of payoffs do? Patrick, you realize that a plot hole is a plot contrivance but worse, right? At least with a contrivance, it could happen. A plot hole by definition is a strict contradiction. It should not happen. You seem to be contradicting yourself quite a lot. While I make some videos that are technically film criticism, I don't count as a film critic. These people write scripts with more inconsistencies than the films I am trying to criticize, and these videos that they make are only 10 minutes long. Critics are not bought or bribed. Disney does not pay off critics to trash DC movies. It's not like bad reviews hurt Suicide Squad's box office, so why would studios waste money on that? A few moments later. Before seeing a movie, I'll skim reactions from critics I trust on Twitter, I'll glance briefly at the reviews, and if enough of them seem to dig it, I'll see the movie. Why would studios waste money on that? How do you write that in the same video? Many people accuse me of inaccurate film criticism too, that I am not aware of extra knowledge that would have changed my assessment had I known it. This is actually a truth, there are a couple of things that I am completely unaware of, and that is a human error as you would call it, but I am happy to admit that I can make that mistake. Patrick talks about how many critics are getting facts straight wrong by not paying attention to the movie, as if he is separate from that collective, only to then, in the same video, say this. An alien, if the acid can melt through the floor, why does it melt through the entire ship? Patrick, acid doesn't just burn forever, it will neutralize after it eats through enough material. In fact, that is the immediate concern for the crew of the Nostromo in the film Alien. After realizing that it could potentially eat through the hull, they then find the spot where it's reaching its end, and comment on it. Do you understand how many contradictions we've reached in just a few minutes? His video on plot holes was so poorly constructed that despite the positive ratings on the video itself, an overwhelming proportion of top comments are in disagreement with him. This reaction is actually very similar to the one H-Bomber Guy received on his video in relation to Bloodborne. The fanbase will always appreciate a good new video, but once you have time to discuss it, videos with awful argumentations start to fall apart. I would say that one of the most accurate examples of this clear disconnect would be Joseph Anderson's attempt at explaining why horror games don't scare him and his follow-up video. His first video was very confusing in structure, conflating his feelings with facts while presenting that an entire genre is fundamentally broken. This served to reveal a sense of ignorance in the exploration of said genre, and I have honestly never seen such a major portion of the comment section in complete disagreement. Similarly to Patrick and H-Bomber Guy, these were despite the positive ratings. This is the kind of thing that will of course happen to me down the line if I fall out of touch. But how you respond to criticism can often say more than the initial statement ever could. Speaking of which, Joseph responded to the criticism with an extremely condescending video explaining that it is in fact on the viewer to figure out which statements he makes are subjective and which are objective. This absolves him of any responsibility in his own writing, placing the blame directly on the viewers. As a result, the comment section ravaged him once again. These are the kind of videos you end up with when you have a severe lack of self-awareness. At least 50% of the plot holes that I see people complain about are things that are actually explained in the movie if you just pay attention. In Alien, if the acid can melt through the floor, why doesn't it melt through the entire ship? It stopped. I'm sitting like that except molecular acid. But I guess if you're too busy live tweeting about plot holes, you can miss some stuff. Patrick and many others like him are so woefully beyond inconsistent that they're only recourses to invent quotes from their opposition in order to make them look more ridiculous by comparison. It's a hypocritical strawman, and it's not very effective. While this backward logic is splattered across different conversational threads, my channel has been generating more and more interest from people who enjoy the central premise. People who rather clearly understand what I'm actually doing here. So no worries, folks. I am fully aware of them trying to play the semantics game to discredit my work and the work of many other creators. Honestly, you should expect more of that as my channel grows since making enemies is just par for the course on the internet. Especially when you tell someone that something they enjoy is poorly crafted, or vice versa. Separating how they feel from the art itself is something they disagree with at the core, so of course they get upset when you point out a flaw they can't reconcile emotionally. But this is not a foreign concept for them. They are fully aware of the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, and they know when content is poorly made. It simply doesn't apply when it's their sacred cow. Thus they end up taking criticism as a personal insult, but good lord that is not the case. Besides, it's much easier to simply smear people who disagree with you rather than open a discussion. Isn't that right, Quinton? To state that your opinions, which mostly come down to things like thoughts about the lore and picks about dialogue, are objective facts that can never be disputed by anyone is ridiculous. Uh-huh. Well, you can sit down for now. I have some important stuff to get out of the way. I'll see you at the end. Many people across all debate, discussion and discourse from the dawn of time have put in a strong effort to blur the line between subjectivity and objectivity. If not by malice or ignorance, it is a backward way to win an argument, to redefine a landscape until your feelings are considered fact, with no regard for what the very definitions of those words even are. And with more and more controversial discussions taking place, you will eventually find the word opinion is thrown around far more than references to the topic being discussed. The purpose behind it in this case is to champion the idea that there is no such thing as good or bad content, that everyone is simply sharing their perspective. You know, the mentality that everyone gets a medal no matter what. Participation is now enough to celebrate quality. Everybody who was in the race now gets a first place medal. It's as if they no longer want to recognize how well the goal was completed or how shockingly it was failed. Of course, this doesn't apply when talking about the room, or birdemic, or how about cinemasins. It is very difficult to find anyone who declares cinemasins is a channel of quality. However, cinemasins is a form of art. He has transformed the original content for a different purpose. Surely whether his work is bad is purely subjective. Of course, I don't see it that way, but what I'm trying to show is that they do use objectivity as a scale when it suits them. But that fights their principle of everything coming down to an opinion, so you will only find it happening with the things they so desperately want beaten into the ground. Ultimately, if you subscribe to these channels, their standards get very confusing. So I say let's throw them at the window in favor of something far more consistent. I think I should be clear in saying that anyone, including myself, likely in this very series of videos, will eventually, in their lives, create bad pieces of content, and it can be assessed for a conclusion. There are plenty of ways to determine it. Let's start with getting facts wrong. That would be a big one. We open up in the 1970s with two characters that have a plan to share weaponry to community surrounding the area with Wakandan technology because of the struggle that persists. No, it was set in 1992. What's wrong with you? As far as I'm concerned, plenty of these show an opportunity for a backstab to activate and it comes across as the game falling asleep. Don't you know that the jester robes are immune to backstabs? You hack! We then see the Hulk has been transported directly to Kamatage. No, it was Sanctum Sanctorum. How can you call yourself a critic? Yes, these are a few moments of several in which I get things wrong. Do you know why? Because there is objective information that I failed to research correctly. I made mistakes in the art I created. My work is therefore flawed, affecting the overall objective quality. This is possible when you understand that objectivity exists in art. But when it comes to these people, facts are frustrating because it can force a strongly held position to face scrutiny when they would prefer to simply enjoy their perspective while letting others know they are incorrect for having theirs. This approach to analysis is novel and oftentimes very entertaining, but it will leave you completely inconsistent and outright embarrassing to listen to, especially when you begin to completely contradict your own thesis without even realizing it. There will always be people for whom an experience just isn't for them or who are too dumb to understand how to play something or don't realize that something they think is good is objectively bad. Some people really like Fallout 3, and they seem to be the specific type of people who think clicking a dislike button is a decent way of expressing their feelings. In other words, objectively stupid people like Fallout 3. And there is a right way to play the Souls games. You can hide behind the shield a lot, die over and over trying to memorize every encounter, or use magic from a distance to avoid having to engage with the game or wear the heaviest armor and hope that'll save you. But the reality is it's just more fun playing it as someone who donges, who weaves, who parries, and who uses situational awareness to assess a situation. You guys remember Hbomber Guy. He acknowledged my existence again on Twitter. It was wonderful. Last time he spoke to me it was about my DS2 series, and in relation to someone saying they couldn't be bothered to watch any more than 10 minutes, he had this to say at the end of the conversation. Have you ever eaten something bad and stopped, or realized there were 8 more courses and stopped? Because I think people who do that might still have some relevant criticism. And in response, I said, that is an interesting analogy, and had someone watched part 1 and offered criticism for it, I am sure it would be helpful. But to eat a potato and complain that the entire meal tastes bad is simply not useful at all. He chose not to respond to me again after that exchange. Clearly behaving like someone who definitely isn't mad that they got owned online and just wants to have a reasonable conversation about the facts. But recently the topic of objectivity versus subjectivity came up, and I received this from Harris. You're 100% entitled to your opinion, and you noticed a bunch of genuine mistakes I made in the video, but pretending that your opinion is the only one based in facts, and people who find that approach tiresome are just scared of the truth, is a bit of an overstep. I love being acknowledged by my peers online, it makes me feel powerful, virile even. So I responded by asking why he's trying to make me look crazy by implying that I think my opinions are facts due to achieving objectivity. Though I shouldn't be surprised, he's not the first intellectual to misrepresent my work. I don't think you're a bad person, I simply don't agree with your approach to video game criticism. It's a little immature to write as if you've achieved objectivity and I'm out to make you look crazy for it. And I'd recommend like, chilling out, lol. I guess it's easy to win a fight with an opponent made of straw. You are damn right, Harris. So he will continue to ignore me or take potshots when available instead of having a discussion. Which is fine, I suppose, but I must say there is something very interesting about the first interaction I had with him. He pointed out a criticism of mine that was not valid as it was clearly taking a joke seriously. I responded that even if it were a joke, I provided context so that viewers would understand that and choose to ignore me or see the argumentation for how weak it was regardless. I kept getting notifications of that conversation as time went on, likely because it was featured at the end of my last Jedi series. As a result, many had a problem with how sheepishly he responded to my criticism. To try and come across as if he gave it a chance only to pick up on one quote and then refuse to reply when criticized for it. As a result, he has apparently decided to delete the tweet entirely to remove that mistake from memory. It's the closest I think I've seen someone come to admitting that they've lost. It appears that I owned him so hard with such bulletproof reasoning that he didn't even mention me or my video directly, despite the fact that we have mutual friends so I know he's seen the video and I know it really pissed him off. He later admitted that yes, there are mistakes in Dark Souls 2 and his video on it, but they are not flaws in overall game design objectively. They are mistakes, but they are not flaws. Right. I'm still happy to chat with you, Harris, whether or not your perspective makes a lick of sense. We could get along famously, I'm sure. Just stop with the snipes unless you're going to give me a chance to actually have a conversation with you. It's a little bit unsporting, that's all. I promise to not do that eventually when I grow up one day. So yes, objectivity and subjectivity. At this point, the concept has practically drawn a line between two types of critical analysis. The issue is that many content creators will blend the two ideas and then hide under the banner of subjectivity to avoid criticism. Rather than being happy to compare how they felt to the reality of the content, there is this stubborn assumption that the first thing you felt is now the only piece of information that's relevant to the deconstruction of the media. How you feel may remain with you, but that doesn't mean you should stop listening to other people, exploring the content with any depth or allowing yourself to experience even more. Instead, there is this idea that you should hold on to that one narrow perspective, which is detrimental to communication, especially if it's based on false information. The sun being a star is just an opinion. Water being a liquid is just an opinion. And of course, the last Jedi having a script chock full of defined inconsistencies is just an opinion. It's a fantastic tool for the modern analyst. It's like a free pass. You don't have to do any work on your script at that point because it can't be wrong. It's all just an opinion. You know what, guys? Maybe I didn't get the date wrong in Black Panther. Maybe that was my opinion of the date. It was my experience of the date. You can't say it's wrong. Do you see how useful it is to construct essays that way? I just shouldn't be allowed to talk about Dark Souls anymore. Someone should just come and stop me and idiot of myself. You can't say I didn't try, Harris. So I had an extensive stream with my community while playing Sly Cooper some time ago. This particular issue was discussed heavily, and there were several comments about what seems to be this open frustration about using the word objective whatsoever on YouTube. There is no fear of facts because analysts who claim subjectivity will still employ that objective standard at their own leisure, especially when it's not their sacred cow being humiliated. But to label something you've found to be factual as objective is not something these guys want to do. People don't want to use it because it places a target on their back. It means that there is no safety net to fall back on. No chance to say, It's just an opinion. Let me have my opinion. You're essentially saying that your content is correct. So if it turns out to be incorrect when information is fact-checked or new information arises, you have to admit that you've made objective mistakes. Many YouTube reviews still accept it, and it's a great tool in an analytical arsenal because you can grow from understanding the difference between facts and feelings. By the way, when they let her out of the cage and they're heading into the city for their mission, she's like texting the Joker? Why does she have a cell phone? Uh, maybe she hit it in some crack. Okay. I really couldn't tell you. She's had it in there for years. Maybe she found one while they're walking around on the street. I really don't know. But yeah, she's... Listen, you're being transferred. I don't know where you're going. It's from Mr. J. You gonna tell them I should kill you? You're so screwed. Red Letter Media created an assessment of Suicide Squad. This was a writing flaw they cited to assist in proving a conclusion about the film's poor quality without realizing they had missed a detail in one of the scenes. So they acknowledged the error, and despite that flaw in their assessment, their conclusion was still strong because of many other references that were accurate to the events in the film. And the conversation was once again completed after being amended. Which is great. In fact, it's quite a positive experience for everybody involved. But not for these guys. To be wrong is to have your position weakened. So that is unacceptable, and therefore everyone is right. No one can be wrong. Except people who use the term objective. They need to be burned at the stake. As I said, this is interesting to me because these are the same people who make statements of fact regularly. It is very easy to find. Hell, they admit to it directly sometimes, talking about the method being more convincing and therefore useful to spread their message. I know I talk authoritatively sometimes, but I hope it's clear I'm just offering my opinion in a way I think is interesting or convincing. But you can't criticize them for that because they begin and end their pieces with that good old disclaimer, or as it should be known, the safety net. Hey guys, before I start this video off, I just want to say that this video on Dark Souls is my opinion only. The core of the game was a disappointment for me. The ashes for me had burnt out. This is only my opinion. I know there was a lot of Dark Souls fans out there. It still felt a bit hollow. Personally, I think Dark Souls is a true masterpiece. In my opinion, it was not enough. For me personally though, I feel like the fire has gone out in the latter titles. This is not your opinion. This is just how I feel about the Dark Souls universe. This is just my opinion. Yours may vary. Go ahead and drop yours in the comment section. I'd love to read it. Yes, those were all from one 15 minute video. These disclaimers are everywhere, and they are incorporated by many prominent creators. And I am not saying that you should never use it. I simply have some points to make. The vague label of opinion is being slapped on every element of a video essay, as if the word means that everything you said, whether feeling or fact, was subjective and thus cannot be disputed. Conversely, if a video presents strong arguments on a subject, many will wave it off as it's just an opinion, as if the word means there was nothing objective about the content whatsoever. That is not how it works. An opinion can apply to the sharing of a view constructed of feelings, of thoughts, or of objective information. It depends on what is said. It is the difference between objective and subjective. This applies to every facet of communication, including discussion on art. Though that doesn't mean you should then spam it in every sentence of your essay like many have started doing as an excuse for poor research. Otherwise, it will end up in sentences that absolutely didn't require it in the first place. In my opinion, the Sun is a star. No, that's not an opinion. It's a fact. The Sun being a star is of course a judgment or view we can hold, making it an opinion by definition. But discussion does not require the disclaimer of in my opinion before stating the Sun is a star, because we all have the refined information available that proves that conclusion. Several standards are used to measure whether the Sun reaches the requirements of being a star. From there we have words that are defined to communicate those pieces of evidence and in my opinion becomes redundant. It is only when we share subjective opinions or unsupported opinions that we need that disclaimer. But even then, unsupported opinions such as this game has inconsistent hitboxes in my opinion does not absolve you from scrutiny in the way that sharing a feeling does. Saying the Sun is beautiful in my opinion cannot be proven wrong due to its subjectivity. Beautiful is inherently a qualifier that is subjective. So let's try another example. Star Wars The Last Jedi has no inconsistencies in either its characters or its plot in my opinion. This opinion is inherently objective and saying in my opinion at the end would be redundant because of course it's your opinion, but that doesn't make it subjective. The opinion lacks any emotive language. It is a statement of fact. To be inconsistent is qualifiable outside of emotion. That means the statement the person made lacked experience or information. It is impossible to come to the conclusion that there are no inconsistencies unless you are ignoring the meaning of words in the English language. It is simple. You present the objective criteria, then you satisfy the objective criteria and reach a conclusion. Your emotional experience didn't enter into the equation whatsoever. This should highlight the issue of in my opinion being used arbitrarily to stave off criticism when criteria isn't clear or when it's downright contradictive. It's as if they believe an opinion can never be refuted. Aside from that issue, when you make these statements and you don't bother to back them up with any evidence or argumentation instead opting for the safety net. In my subjective opinion? You are not only creating content with the amount of substance that is on par with a thumbs up or down for each subject. You have also admitted that you have so little faith in your own perspective that you had to put a preemptive scrutiny shield in front of it. But don't assume that I'm immune from this. I am absolutely guilty of it too. It's just something I try to avoid when writing and it makes the process much longer. Hence why I still haven't said it in other than quotations yet. I understand though. Holding a position like The Last Jedi as a masterpiece of a script is rough without saying something like, in my opinion. But to then use the definition of opinion as a preventative measure from evidence that counters that position is ignorance in its most classic form. You can still like the content. You can still feel whatever you will. But stop asserting that it is logically written when it is proven not to be by any logical standard. It makes the conversation fall apart. And from there, the party with the false or lacking information, in this case being the video essay, will be criticized only to have something rather strange happen. There is no recognition of a mistake or a moment for growth to occur. They simply say, well, it's my subjective opinion. And thus the word is being completely misused, which is obviously very much to their own benefit and whether or not that is the motivation. There is this rising obsession with the idea that logic is a faulty metric for both character assessments and storytelling and when assessing a critic and their inconsistencies. This all makes sense because humans are inherently emotional and they're not logical whatsoever. And you know what human beings are not logical. People are impulsive. They make choices based on emotion. Not everyone thinks exactly the same. So if everyone acted totally logically all the time, only making the most logical decision in any situation, no one would be acting human. The issue here is the word logical is being used in two different ways at the same time. If a character behaves illogically because of a previously established character trait, then the progression is logical in terms of writing. What happened made sense with who they are. In this case, Patrick is referring to the film A Quiet Place, the story of a world in which you make a single sound and it can get you killed in a moment's notice. Patrick makes the argument that we should not expect the characters to behave logically because they are human. However, the reason that the entire video is often referenced as a strawman is because the complaint is not that they behave illogically. It's that their character writing is illogical. The characters are shown to take care with sound dampening throughout the film, making very creative decisions to account for this dire situation that shows intelligence and care. Yet they blatantly ignore several options provided to them by the environment that are proven by the film to be far more beneficial to their goals. These logical contradictions in their characters are made to generate drama in the storyline, which is inherently incompetent writing and very lazy. Hopefully I can explain this with a reverse example. Do you believe that Thanos' plan in Infinity War makes sense? Well, that's irrelevant compared to what comes first in consistent character writing, which is... Do you believe that Thanos believes his plan makes sense? The film makes efforts to show his history and explore his values to explain his actions as a logical progression despite the plan being inherently illogical when considering the realistic effect of his snap versus what his intentions are. That is logically consistent writing for an emotionally irrational or illogical character, and that is the nuance that you will really find in assessments nowadays because everything has to be 10 minutes long or it's wrong. I mean, good lord, I haven't begun my assessment and we're already like 30 minutes in. So in turn, when you criticize these creators for lacking nuance, skipping information or contradicting themselves, we end up hearing more and more about how it's all just an opinion, which ends up completely sapping any meaning that word had. We go from the fight for the best idea supported by references to waving the counter-arguments off and validity is defined by how loud or far reaching the message is. And that's sad. Why bother with any effort anymore? Why would you ever pay more for a writer than any other? Why would they teach it? You may as well upload a video with the topic and a thumbs up or down. It'll have the very same amount of substance as the common reviews that open with. This active blurring of facts and feelings gets very confusing for many viewers who actually listen to these people's scripts, their videos, making us question whether they actually understand what the word objective means. Even though that movie is objectively horrible. Right, right. Exactly. But 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. Objective has nothing to do with whether people agree worldwide. That is nonsense. This is an active attempt at making the word taboo to use in modern analytical discussion, but we have to admit that something is undeniably true. Bookending your video with in my opinion, will actually stymie the flow of critical responses from the audience because they will parrot this disclaimer as if it means anything until this process starts getting pointed out. Many channels will lower their own standards to a point where 10 minutes can go by and nothing is said. As long as they get their scripts out and they tie it all together with subjectivity, they can make content quicker and quicker. They can cover more eye-catching subjects and they can have the benefit of being bulletproof. It allows them to get basic facts wrong and they don't face scrutiny. Despite the fact that they run channels that are entirely dependent on the concept of scrutinizing art. I cannot think of a bigger waste of time than debating art. My goodness, how sad is that? Not to mention it's completely hypocritical. All these people do is account for other arguments created by people on their channels. Just how good or bad something truly is while taking into account other arguments that people have brought to the conversation. And that's on top of the fact that they are creating art as well. Make no mistake. Video essays are absolutely an art form. I mean, pretty much anything can be art anyway, but these videos are designed to evoke feelings in the viewer. It's not like they're simply instructional videos telling you how to prevent Sony Vegas from freezing, which I actually ended up searching for and it worked. They want you to feel something specific when they make these videos and much of the time code can be spent manipulating information to do so. That means they are open to scrutiny and it doesn't just stop the second you say in my opinion. Let me give you an example. Jonathan McIntosh created a video in defense of The Last Jedi. He made several claims including that male hatred for the film was based on the female characters offering advice and helping the male characters fulfill their arcs despite their failings throughout the narrative. And from there, the angry male fans have trouble with that because it is ingrained into them that women don't usually fit that role. In order to achieve proving this theory, he will actively ignore many facts of the narrative while inventing his own. It serves to give the assessment a little push in the direction that best suits his narrative, but it's subtle and so people get sidetracked as to what point McIntosh's feelings and the facts of the script get mixed up. The Last Jedi is a movie that's designed to subvert audience expectations. Finn's intentions are selfish and driven by a lack of faith. He's convinced that the fight against the First Order is a lost cause. He even uses the essay voice throughout his videos. Remember, folks, soft spoken and fragile to sell that emotional resonance. Regardless, he is wrong. Finn makes it clear that he is motivated to leave in order to save Rey's life because it's only a matter of time before the ship is destroyed, which is true because Holdo has let her crew believe there is no hope. Tell us that we have a plan, that there's hope! Sorry, but this fleet is doomed and if my friend comes back to what she's doomed to, I gotta get this beacon far away from here So, Finn choosing to save someone by leaving is inherently self-less, especially when considering that he did not sign up to the Resistance and yet, when he chooses to leave, he is abused, captured and told to fight for this cause or he is a coward. These details are part of why the film's script is so heavily flawed. There was an attempt to send several messages, but they are actively at odds with the narrative and the character progression. I understand that these ideas and these themes exist, but they are not effectively executed. They contradict themselves. Both Macintosh and Johnson have a narrative to sell and we hold both of their scripts accountable for their consistency, but saying, in my opinion, doesn't suddenly mean your video isn't actively ignoring facts. You are not now immune to criticism. This is how false narratives are written in video essays. They ignore counter-arguments and information that could cause cognitive dissonance in order to appeal to the audience that they've already cultivated. They add, in my opinion, to imply that you can't address their fabricated references at all, but a film is finite in terms of a source of information, which means fact-checking video essays based on movies is incredibly simple. That's not to say it's impossible to defend The Last Jedi, but to argue that the film is completely consistent in both its own rules and the rules supplied by its universe after an in-depth assessment would be too lie about the content. The people who agreed with Macintosh agreed before the video was released. They were simply waiting for a mouthpiece to address the film from a gendered perspective because it is an agenda-driven channel. It didn't matter what he actually said, as long as it made a comment on women's position in society. In fact, his audience wanted more of it, more ways of pointing out what they already wanted to see before even clicking the video. The people who watch and agree, and the people who don't watch and don't agree, were both doing it for the same reason, because of the political bias in the assessment. This is essentially confirmation bias. And so, this is how divides are created and how discourse is destroyed. Macintosh is not alone in the grand scale, though. His narrative is simply that of showing gender-driven politics in media, whether or not it's applicable. Down With Thrust's narrative is reporting on the doom and destruction that is the gaming industry, whether or not it's applicable. Patrick Willems' narrative is to undermine the self-taught critics of YouTube as he wants his film studies to mean that his work is worth more than a random dude who just watches movies and points out plot holes. Essayists will forget about the facts that ruin their narrative. We all have a narrative. Mine is trying to get to the logical baseline for every element in a script under an objective writing standard. And so I provide you references that are researched, and my opinion is really relevant because I have to follow what is seen and heard, and then relay that to you guys, which is essentially Quinton's biggest mistake. He thinks I'm sharing my opinion of The Last Jedi when I say there are contradictions in the script, despite referencing many of them, and I can't blame him because he is yet another person who uses opinion as a shield from criticism. But I don't. That judgment was objective, supported by references. If it is inaccurate and based on faulty information, then please scrutinize me. It will improve my work. What it won't do is prompt me to say, it's just my opinion. Leave me alone. Interestingly, Macintosh doesn't really use the term opinion either. He is that sure of his perspective, which in a way is respectable. If only he would explore the people who completely disagree to get to the bottom of the subject. Media is extremely important to culture and discussion across the globe. Don't avoid it just because ignorance is bliss, and you have trouble with the idea of exploring your own reaction to new information. Fortunately for us, either way, we can just debate and discuss it regardless of these people. We can break down any piece of art, including their own, objectively. And funnily enough, in a community that subscribes to the idea of objective analysis, you'd think they'd be quite the echo chamber, but it's actually less of an echo chamber than most communities because we all hammer out the resources and references. All of us have a certain amount of information, which will be more or less than the next person. So we share it and we grow. We hold each other accountable for the proof of the statements we make, and of course it is completely valid to say that you do or do not like something. My Discord has discussions every day that share references to get to the bottom of a subject. People learn there because objectivity isn't always easy and anyone is capable of working with it. It's pretty neat. These people tend to have a company line to follow, where you can't say anything too controversial if it doesn't fit the narrative. This is a film about space wizards intended for children. Meanwhile... I think this movie is goddamn incredible. It is easily the best Star Wars movie since the Empire Strikes Back, and today, we're gonna talk about why. Uh... We're talking about... A movie about space wizards intended for children. A few inches later... I haven't stopped thinking about The Last Jedi. And to all the people who hate it, I wish that you could see what I see, because it's pretty great. And if you don't consider an objective standpoint to be a narrative, you might be able to understand that it essentially means you lack a narrative. It's not supposed to make you feel angry or happy. It's supposed to offer you the chance to compare how you felt about the craft with what happened in the craft. And yes, folks, even some of my favorite films of all time across the universe have objective issues. So please, take it from me. Objectivity does not have the intention of invalidating feelings, but it can, depending on person to person. That part is subjective. And hey, you can use the word opinion all over your analysis when describing thoughts and feelings, but I would try and avoid it when you're simply using it to ignore contradicting information, just to believe your own lie, or in some cases, in the hopes of mixing the objective and the subjective. If a creator keeps telling you that it's just their opinion, then try and imagine why they felt the need to keep on saying it. Maybe they had no factual reference for why they felt the way they did. Maybe they wanted to manipulate someone else's factual references without providing their own. Maybe they misunderstood their own subjective experience for a factual reference. Maybe they wanted to copy and paste the popular perspective, but they didn't provide the factual references that would lead to the conclusion. Maybe they can't reach factual references because they lack a sense of consistent argumentation. Or perhaps they generate their own factual references in order to wedge their own politics into media. Or maybe they want to lie just enough to sell their position. But what would tell you the difference between these? Well, it would be their references compared to reality. It would be the patterns they find. It would be how much information they omit. If you don't care about proof and you are simply looking for validation, then yes, those videos will work for you. But that is a serious problem on YouTube. It's an admission that the video has the exact same level of substance as someone who said the exact opposite with conflicting references to the script, meaning there is no discussion, just people shouting into a void, and the second it shouts back, in comes the safety net. In my subjective opinion... In the context of discussion about art, objectivity is the idea of explaining what happened and how effectively it was achieved in its craft without influence from emotion. Subjectivity is the idea of explaining what it made you think and what it made you feel. And if you can, explain why it does that for you specifically. Both of these offer great insight, but they need to be separated for the sake of communication. Otherwise, we'll never understand each other. But interestingly, mixing them together allows people to get away with making objectively terrible videos that do well in terms of a view count. Video essays were essentially a format in which people could share research on a topic to help an audience understand something large in a bite-sized format. On the video game side, Super Bunny Hop and Matthew Matosis were some of the pillars that ended up fostering the creation of people like Downward Thrust and Clean Prince Gaming. On the movie side, you have every frame of painting and lessons from the screenplay acting as inspiration while also giving rise to channels like Pop Culture Detective and Just Right. The initial channels keep on trucking or fall by the wayside, but these new ones have copied the style, the voice, the editing, the titles. Some have even found a way to clone content that takes weeks to make and create daily outputs instead. The way they do it is that they say nothing in these videos, or they say absolutely inaccurate statements instead. But on both sides of film and games, the element they fail to copy is the writing quality and it's showing. I don't know if you guys have noticed, but the video essay crowd is getting more and more bloated with awful content creators and it's giving rise to passionate creators with standards supported by research because people are tired of being baited into a video with no substance. It's the reason I started making videos. I just hated what was on the market. Passion is dead for so many video essayists and it needs to change. What was once a chance to hear from someone who has insight into a topic has now turned into let's listen to that random guy who might have something to say but basically just wants to ramble for 10 minutes and it sucks. The video essay community has essentially become the commentary community. That's not to say that commentary is worthless by any means. It is to say that video essays used to be about research with a sense of accuracy all in favor of making a solid point. But now, like the commentary community, it is more about quickly sharing some thoughts. Only by comparison with video essayists, they make something seem a lot more important and that you need to hear it and that's all thanks to YouTube algorithms. This kind of content is encouraged, but there are still great content creators out there. You've just got to go look for them and thankfully as time goes on, these people are being called out more and more. So we are getting there folks. Though video essays are one issue, subjective versus objective is another one and when you put them together, you really do get some of the crappiest content out there. Now, does anything I just said sound irrefutable and simply true? Well, it shouldn't because I haven't figured this all out yet and many words come with more than one definition. But something that is key here is that objective does not mean irrefutable. You can have an emotionless argument that was built on bad information. That is why two people who assess objectively can still argue because we all have different amounts of information and so we will share it with each other and then we grow. However, this is the bedrock of critical analysis and so it's a very complicated subject that cannot be completely explained in one hour which is besides the fact that I am still learning. Though this line of thinking not only behaves as the most consistent, it accounts for the methods that the other essayists employ and it betrays what narrative they push. The Last Jedi is a story about men learning to trust women's ideas and decisions and then becoming better people and better heroes because of it. It's a vital lesson that men need to learn if we are to achieve gender equality. The biggest problem I face is having false information or poor research. The biggest problem they face is having the viewers actually listen to their videos. You're kind of watching movies wrong. There's an episode. Oh, there it is again. Yeah, there it is again. Just keep telling me how to do stuff. I like that. Good to get the confirmation that there is a correct... Again, there is a correct objectively. There is a correct and an incorrect way to watch movies. Not a thing that we have ever said. This is a thing that people tell us that we say and we're wrong for saying that. But when somebody else says it, they're correct. Once you spot all of the blatant contradictions in a video essay, you'll be able to find what the motive is behind it. And believe me, with the worst researched videos, there's always a motive. With a movie like Black Panther, a review by a 25-year-old white guy on YouTube is probably not going to have much to offer. Saying that every angry gamer is trying to be James Rolfe is like saying that every racist gamer is trying to be Jon Tron. Mobile games are for moms and casuals, and those people suck, and I hate them for some reason in the case of this Diablo business. It's less about resentment at you not getting a hypothetical something than it is anger that a hypothetical someone that you dislike might be getting something and feeling good about it. Many of these guys can't help but view a woman who is serving as teacher to a male hero as anything other than preachy, annoying, or emasculating. The fact that Rose also happens to be played by an actress of color only magnifies their anger. So, um, here's the thing. I fucking hate Trump. I would be a much happier person if we found a way to deport him from every position of power that he has ever had. Therefore, in conclusion, work a lot harder on your scripts. Explore the layers that come with the definition of the word opinion and how it is used. Push the boundaries of well-crafted content and then you won't need those pesky disclaimers in the first place. Besides that, no matter how much mud gets slung at me, I won't just stop the objective and subjective train. I'm afraid I'm a big fan of research, references, knowledge, passion, and effort. So either get on the train and argue your ideas or get off the damn tracks. Now, perhaps you're wondering why I started with this topic. Well, in relation to Star Wars, objective quality in the script of The Last Jedi has opened up older conversations once again among many Star Wars fans. These conversations include just how well-written is the entire saga, exactly. Are the prequels actually awful or excellent? Are the originals actually classics or just average? Is The Force Awakens a fantastic film or not? We already know that these questions are a tad hyperbolic and there are plenty of YouTube channels and critics that have covered the saga completely. Star Wars The Phantom Menace was the most disappointing thing since my son. Plinkit sort of covered The Force Awakens, though I guess I would say Hackfraud Media did a more thorough job on that one. And hell, Plinkit can do as he wishes when it comes to Star Wars, but it was a voice many people wanted to hear from. After a certain online critic deconstructed the prequels and explained in reasonable terms why most people hate them, someone who basically changed the way the internet complains about movies and paved the way for other YouTubers to complain endlessly about movies. Perhaps that is true, but it sounds a little bitter, especially when there are many content creators that predate you. Every critic has influences, every critic has a style. And thankfully, Red Letter Media actually released a video on The Last Jedi, and despite throwing their hat in later than many, they added plenty of substance to the conversation, discovering even more flaws in The Last Jedi that many, including myself, didn't actually consider. Either way, throughout these videos, you're going to see several clips pop up from various creators with their own ideas and patterns. The point will be the same for this as when I do my video game critiques. I keep a pulse on the community that first approached the content to see what changed. I mean, everyone has covered every film in the saga pretty much. In-depth, spoilers, secrets, and all things in between. But someone hasn't quite done that yet. Me. I only have the one Star Wars critique under my belt, and I'd like that to change. And the order in which I'll be covering the entire saga is up for debate, but I think it makes sense to take a look back at The Force Awakens as my second critique, since the film itself pleased a hell of a lot of people when it released. And now, especially after several other reviews, the quality has been brought into question, similarly to other content in the Star Wars saga once time passes. Especially in this case, when we have its sequel to answer for so many of its setups. It will also allow me to spread the bedrock in prep for an analysis of Episode 9 when it releases, being that I should probably approach the first two films in the trilogy before summing it up as a whole. I am going to try my best to remain consistent and approach every film in the franchise with the same lens as we progress over the coming years, until completing an in-depth look into the scripts for them all. Also, since I received a lot of appreciation for it last time, I won't be using harsh swear words in this series until The Force Awakens has been fully covered. I will signpost that change when we come to it. I have a few guest spots from other YouTubers that have agreed to share their perspective on Star Wars as we progress. They will pop up periodically and provide how they feel about the current state to shake it up. That means they will say things that you or I could very well disagree with heavily. But it will be neat to have someone, you know, other than me to listen to as we go forward. I'm sure you guys would appreciate a break from my voice every 100 hours or so. On top of that, I will be exploring many sources of media to inform the analysis, like interviews, production elements, first-hand accounts, alternative reviews, and other stories told with relevant writing techniques. There's going to be a lot of that. I took a long time with this one. And man, you notice a lot of patterns when you see all of this stuff in one big bunch. Like how there's this strange obsession with interviewers asking the cast to make noises and impressions. That was a little... That was kind of a sexy... Sexy... Is it that? You should know, is it that? With the theme of The Force and all that good stuff, Oh my God, I sound like Santa. Is it that? It's good enough. Anything could pop up in this series. It's going to be pretty mysterious. I have no idea what's going to happen. No way of knowing. It's such a mysterious thing. It is. It's a huge, huge movie. It's more than a movie. It's this phenomenon. But I don't know. I don't really know what to expect. But once again, third-party lore and information from other shows or comics or books is not going to be permitted as an explanation for weak writing in the script itself. It is important to add that as we advance you will not agree with everything I'm going to conclude on. There is always room for more discussion. My videos should be evidence of that, but I will make objective mistakes depending on whether I have researched elements thoroughly. And I leave it to the comments section to let me know where I have stumbled. Hopefully I can add an addendum to the final part of the series for corrections, if enough should rise. I would like to say that I fully appreciate anyone willing to share my videos, but I would ask that you don't add the tagline, MOLA will prove your feelings wrong. This isn't what I'm here to do, folks, so I'm here to create an objective assessment for those who are interested in the topic up for discussion. Even if other content creators twist what my intentions actually are for an easy sucker punch, don't believe them and don't propagate that sort of behavior. That goes the same for targeted harassment of cast and crew members in these productions. Unless, of course, you are provoked, which can absolutely happen. All I have to say is try to leave them alone and let them live their lives. And hey, I know a vast majority of you don't enter into either of these behaviors, but I figure I should say it. Be civil, and if not that, be humble about mistakes that we do end up making. There are many videos that already explore the pros and cons of Star Wars as a whole, meaning you may hear what you've already heard before, and many of the content creators on YouTube and other analytical sites can be credited as inspirational. Links for each video I watched in prep will be in the description, and each clip will, of course, be taken from a larger context that you are free to explore. In any case, I have tried to provide as much of my own content for this topic as possible, despite being a well-travelled subject. As some of you guys know, I have one of those typical histories with Star Wars for my generation, being that I saw the first six episodes as a kid, and The Force Awakens was the only one I viewed for the first time as an adult. Quite the interesting experience, and on release, TFA was the peak of discussion for our culture as most Star Wars movies end up being. But we are far past release, and we have a wealth of perspectives about the film from numerous sources. So, the purpose of this series of videos is to assess the quality of The Force Awakens, to analyze the film with strong reference to its sequel, to compare writing techniques and quality across many mediums where relevant, to comment on the meta surrounding the film, and finally, to not only incorporate but criticize my peers in relation to the assessment of this film. For those who think I'm here to hate the film alone, I will extend to you the olive branch of knowing that I really liked this film on my first watch through, and like many humans on this planet, I was a little blindsided and enjoyed the spectacle of what it was, though that, and whether money was made, should not be the judge of what makes a quality script. My larger point was, it doesn't matter if it's good as long as it makes money. So, because The Force Awakens made a lot of money, I can't be, it's not ergo, it's good. Either way, once the veil was lifted and the shell-shocking nature of Disney Star Wars films no longer worked, some people started to really pierce through the glamour and notice the writing flaws on the spot. This likely contributed to the mass negative reaction to The Last Jedi, being Star Wars alone really isn't enough to get critical praise from the masses anymore. Many of those same people saw right through The Force Awakens from day one. So my goal is not nefarious, I don't wish to stomp on Star Wars while it's down. In fact, I do wish to celebrate the parts of Star Wars that I really do think are quality in the future, but for now I want to conduct an assessment and find what the positives and negatives of this script are, and then come to a conclusion. For those of you who were shocked that I spent an excessive five hours on one film in my last critique, it may behoove you to know that I created a ten-hour series in response to a one-hour video about a video game. Five hours is actually quick work for me compared to how long I would prefer a series to be. And shockingly for Houston, Turbo, H-bomb folding ideas and many many commenters and the population of the movie Circle Jerk subreddit, saying that a video is long doesn't actually function as an argument of quality, you need to be more specific. Many are propagating a myth and it goes like this. If you create a review of a film and it's longer than the film, then it's a bad review. This logic is literally based on nothing but the idea that it sounds about right. But let me ask you this. Have you ever spoken with a friend about a scene in a film? Just a scene where an event takes place or a character takes an action? Have you ever discussed these moments and their structure with a friend for longer than the scene itself? Let me make this simpler. Have you ever discussed a line of dialogue? I am the one who knocks. Get away from her, you bitch. I am Iron Man. No! You can't handle the truth! What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss? Sir? The most you ever lost. Most serial killers keep some sort of trophies from their victims? I didn't. No. No, you ate yours. All the way. These moments occupy extremely small amounts of screen time, yet you can spend hours with friends going over everything that makes them so powerful, because in an assessment you are trying to break down all of the pieces of design that work to create that very moment, to explain the craft behind it and why it's worth celebrating. And on the flip side of things, it doesn't take very long to consume something awful compared to how long it takes to break down why that thing is awful. Besides, anyone who says my videos are only filled with the subject itself are just outwardly lying to themselves. I go on writing tangents all the time. A more accurate criticism would be that I go off topic too much, but the tangent will serve to explore a writing technique that is currently being discussed. At least, that is the intention. All you need to do is have an actual citation when you criticize someone. Is that so hard? I have a rather large pile of references and ultimately the title is simply what you'll be hearing and seeing the most. The reality is that if I were to show you the third-party research clips alone, all in a row, I would likely have a run-time longer than the film already. So again, come up with a better criticism. This one is boring me, though I have no recommendations for a sickle jerk community. The whole premise is that their hive mind did not be challenged, so keep going, I guess. All I should say is I appreciate the free promotion. Thank you. Despite all of that, though, my general audience may still not be prepared to find out that this series is going to be about 15 hours long. Cut across six videos releasing weekly. For those who think they understand such intellectuals like Will I Am Shakespeare and his famous quotes, I have something to tell you about Brevity is the Soul of Wit. Did you think that when he said that, everything should be a particular length? If you have one story, then it should average a certain length, when in a movie, for example. Yeah, that makes enough sense. But wait, what if you watched two movies in a row? Should they now be shortened to the length of one? Oh dear, it looks like what he was saying was contextual. The context for my work is that I have a huge amount of research from a ridiculous number of sources to share with you folks, and laying it all out will take exactly as long as it takes. Being concise isn't exactly about being strictly short. But in a way, it's about being as short as you can for what you are trying to achieve. If I redraft my work, as I said, and I will try and cut out as much of the repetition or filler in the script that I can find, leaving it to essentially be several months worth of work on as many sources as I could find, crammed into 15 hours that is bite-sized for you folks at home, so that you don't have to watch every single video that these things originally came from. What I'm saying here is that if you have a criticism of the length of the videos, try and be more specific, because that alone isn't really an argument. And besides, you have to consider girth. You can pause my assessment at any moment and continue when you prefer. I know I wouldn't watch it all in one go myself, so with that knowledge, take any full library of a YouTuber and watch it all in a row. Combined with the concise logic that is being used right now, their videos would no longer be concise, would they? And hey, you can criticize anybody with Mr. Shakespeare now. Isn't that brilliant? Either way, I am sadly not quite there, but perhaps one day I will have a series that is actually impossible to watch in one day. I have given this script seven full redrafts, and it is in a position I am proud of. Redrafting is seriously important, folks. I am not kidding. You know, invariably, it's awful. It's terrible. The first cut is like, you know, illness inducingly bad, like always. Yes, it is, Ryan. In conclusion, it looks like we have an attempt to gain the same gravitas for Kylo here as Vader during episode four. They do it with very specific actions being repeated, but in the case of the clone, it commits to the actions without maintaining a narrative thread to explain why the character performs them. This is an attempt to create emotional resonance without maintaining the intellectual consistency of the story, which is a topic on its own, and there is a selection of people in this world who think intellectual consistency doesn't matter compared to the goal of an emotional payoff. The idea that you should be concerned with being emotional instead of being concerned with making sense. I'm just saying, like, you should be more concerned with creating art that is emotionally resonant than something that is, like, intellectually satisfying. This is a clip from the debate that was held between myself, Wolf, and just right about objectivity and subjectivity in art on Wolf's channel. There is a link to the full video in the description. Many statements were made throughout, but none were more troubling than the one I just played. Or I'm just saying, like, you should be more concerned with creating art that is emotionally resonant than something that is, like, intellectually satisfying. This was covered earlier quite briefly in relation to Patrick Willems, but the first mistake this statement makes is implying that emotional resonance and intellectual consistency are counterbalances to each other when telling a story. That if something becomes more logical, it must become less emotionally effective. This is inaccurate, as many people would cite intellectual consistency as the source in which they draw an emotional response. Seeing a series of events play out in a realistic manner yields more immersion for them, making his statement confusing as a general rule. The second issue is that it blurs subjectivity and objectivity, implying that an assessment of either one infringes on the other. This is an attempt to make objectivity appear as a subjective viewpoint. When in reality, objectivity can be used by anyone, and it is beholden to no one. It existed before I was born, and it will continue to exist well after I'm gone. But my subjective viewpoint, how I feel personally about media, that begins and dies with me. It's not hard to distinguish emotional arguments and objective ones. This goes the same for assessing quality. Now, here's an interesting one. What's your personal rank of the six Star Wars movies? I mean, there's two... I have to just go with emotion on it. For me, number one is Return of the Jedi. Then Empire Strikes Back, Star Wars, and then 321. You put Jedi before Empire and Star Wars. Is that because you grew up with it? I recognize that Empire Strikes Back is a better film, but for me, I can't divorce my emotional response to Return of the Jedi, even the Ewoks. Everything about it is, you know, I have a very personal connection to the memories that it elicits. Excellent take, Oscar. Empire is a superior film in craft, but Jedi has some incredible emotional payoffs, and many saw it as their first film, so it holds a special position in their hearts. Objectivity and subjectivity sit in separate fields. There is a clear line between them, and the objective assessment merely adds information that can affect subjective quality from the perspective of the viewer, but affects all viewers differently for every case. Thirdly, the statement ignores the cognitive dissonance that occurs when you view content as flawless personally and flawed objectively. That would normally offer a great opportunity for discussion. Instead, it's avoided. And then, instead of pursuing introspection about this conflict, you suddenly declare that discussions about the measurable qualities of art are harmful to the enjoyment of art, admitting that the truth is causing you discomfort. 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. Which is the crux of this discussion overall. The truth is not something to value unless it makes you feel good. This is the same logic that we use with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, assuming it would take the fun away from children to know the truth. We should not be using this as adults for whether a story makes sense. Debate and discussion help us grow. I cannot think of a bigger waste of time than debating art. If art is meant to teach us about life itself while allowing us to escape, then the more it can maintain consistency that we recognize, the stronger immersion can become, because our world is very much a consistent one when it comes to cause and effect. I mean, how about we check out Just Right in one of his videos about Game of Thrones, but as he talks, I'm going to change the visuals to apply his own principles on the subject to something else. The pressures of creating a serialized story on a schedule almost invariably lead to compromise. Logic is usually the first victim, and convenience becomes commonplace. He is absolutely right. As you take a story on and on, it becomes more difficult to sit within the rules of your universe, and the more pressure you have to create can result in stories that ignore logic and make strong use of convenience. The problems are widespread now, and they're eroding the empathy we had for these characters. Just Right seen here explaining that logical errors and conveniences are ruining the emotional resonance in the content. And yet we go on watching out of some sense of obligation, bonded to it by the empathy it hooked us with in the beginning, blinding ourselves to the faults along the way, because we're going somewhere, right? There has to be some more meaning left, right? Yes, that makes a lot of sense. H-Bomberguy is a firm believer in the subjective nature of art, yet he will tell people they are playing a game wrong for their choice of gear and simultaneously refer to an error as a mistake while maintaining it is not objective. Patrick Willem said there is no reason a company would pay for reviews, only to then share that he will see films based on what the reviews say. He also said that no plot holes actually matter, only to explain that there are certain plot contrivances that do. Hello Greedo argues that debating art is a waste of time, yet he will engage in it regularly both on his channel and his Twitter feed. Quinton Reviews will tell you there is nothing in this world that is objectively bad when he's talking about things he enjoys, only to then call out bad sound design, awful dialogue and low quality film making in many areas of the media he covers. Just Right will create a video highlighting writing issues and their effect on an audience, only to then recognize those same issues in other media and claim the opposite effect on the audience. So why didn't they use Hyperdrive all of the Star Destroyers in the fleet? Yeah, I don't know. Because you're gonna tell me like they didn't have the fuel. It's like, ah, why, how are they there? Yeah. I don't know what it means when these content creators end up providing a counter to their own principle. Oftentimes the video that the principle is stated will provide the contradiction, but it always comes down to a bias they fail to see or actively ignore to protect the media they love. God forbid they admit their sacred cow is flawed. Hypocrisy is a noxious weed. It should be torn out. Though, to bring it back down, Just Right is very capable of assessing media very effectively. What is being highlighted here is emotional bias, preventing an assessment from reaching the conclusion it would normally reach without hindrance. All of the content creators I have given criticism to in this very video have that issue in select moments, as do I. Working to draw the line and let people know when you are speaking from your own experience and heart is important versus when you are simply stating facts. If we keep on being vague and using, it's just my opinion to avoid criticism. Conversations and responses are only going to get worse. Growth will be stunted and media will continue to crumble as every IP falls prey to fast single draft scripts. Too many people become immediately defensive and assume it's an attack on character whenever you criticize media they enjoy, refusing to engage in discussion. And then, if a conversation is ever going to take place, it starts to sound like this. In my opinion has been embarrassing and that is a fact. No, that's your opinion. It's the definition of an opinion. Well, that's your opinion. I genuinely believe many content creators can do this by mistake and that includes myself. But you will find several content creators that do this deliberately to try and turn their audience into a weapon against the people they disagree with. No, there's Quinton again. That's a pretty strong claim to attach Quinton Reviews' face to, isn't it? On a completely unrelated note, I have a podcast now. It's called Every Frame a Pause or EFAP. We watch video essays live and react to them with a bit of commentary. There will be a link in the description and I recommend checking out each of the episodes for a little bit of fun. But if you're confused, perhaps episode 10 will answer the question of why Quinton keeps getting referenced. The point is, if you're not accurate and you're not clear, you can start dealing damage in many ways and sometimes it can be intentional. And when it comes to art, we can discover the moving parts by talking it through and learning from it when we experience something else. This applies to the very art that creators like myself and just right make. But to pretend that we are immune to the very consistencies that we point out in other people's work is simply naive. When telling a story, a human reaction starts at what you saw and heard put together. We build our connection based on the development of the story being told to what we are perceiving as reality, which is tied to its progression and its consistency within its own rules that it's asking us to remember in order to create its own stakes. We do not need to lie to ourselves about what took place to make the experience better. When events cause cognitive dissonance, it brings many viewers away from the immersion, thus diminishing the emotional resonance by lack of intellectual satisfaction. We can grow from an experience like that. It can leave us wondering why we thought of it so differently before, or you can scramble for any alternative to reconcile the writing floor as seen here. But then my follow-up question to that would have been, so why didn't you do it when you held her at gunpoint and threatened the lives of the entire ship, which I don't have 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? Cause for me, like, none of that stuff shows up in a first viewing. Let's get hyperbolic for a second. How in the world are you meant to feel about Leia performing this act when it wasn't set up? It creates evidence for her death outside of the dangerous space and it contradicts our universal rules along with the rules in the Star Wars saga. How could anyone enjoy this or feel it was well presented? How, I ask you. How? Well, that is the beauty of subjectivity. Your feelings will always remain as valid as they were when you first felt them. They do not require logic or consistent reality to be considered valid, but they are invalid when submitted as objective evidence. The interesting thing about this is that your subjective viewpoint can be affected by the logical assessment. Breakdowns of media will change your mind at some point, and that's great. Hi, I'm Commander Chris Hadfield, astronaut, spaceship commander, space walker. I'm here today to hopefully debunk some common space myths. You will immediately fry to a crisp by the unadulterated solar radiation if you get sucked out of the airlock. In truth, it's way worse than that. In the shade in space, it's like minus 250 degrees, but the part of you that's in the sun, it's plus 250 degrees at least. So it's like lying on a red hot stove with a piece of dry ice on your back and your lungs are going to be sucked flat instantaneously. Your blood is going to boil like opening a can of pop where suddenly the all the little bubbles come out because there's no air pressure around you. You are going to freeze, boil, burn, get the bends, and no longer be able to breathe. Not a good way to go. This is why facts, reason, logic and objective values are important to compare to subjective values. You get to see whether you discern a reaction from the events taking place or from you interpreting the events taking place due to a bias. From there, you get to explore that bias and thus you get to explore yourself. But art can also always be deconstructed on a technical level because that is precisely how it's created. You don't invent technology and then figure out what to do with it. You come up with an artistic problem and then you have to invent the technology in order to accomplish it. So it's the opposite of what most people think it is and any artist will tell you that. And art on all levels is just technology. To ignore the technical backbone of art from the incredibly complex process of CGI down to making marks on a wall is to also deny reality. To preserve that special view of art, that it is something beautiful, mystical, and it cannot be boxed. Only appreciated through spirituality and a disconnection from the cold hard reality we all face when in reality, it's both. Denial of this fact lets people run rampant with the idea that no comment is inaccurate or ill-advised. People will then begin to attach connections where there really aren't any. The world it creates is so, a lot of things are very unanswered so people have attached meanings to things that seem to have no meaning and that kind of makes it more personal. Once you establish reality and compare it to your personal reaction you can learn far more about yourself and what you value personally. There is this strange myth that I don't value personal experience on this channel but that is not the case. Subjective assessments will always pop up in my videos because there are things I like to share with you guys that I felt rather than something I can prove mechanically and that is absolutely fine. But you have to accept that on the scale of subjectivity something like The Last Jedi could be a masterpiece or it could be nothing. Everyone is different and that is why objectivity is a valuable baseline to be able to compare. I believe every movie we walk away learning something and in this particular one, what is it that we will be walking away learning? Everyone's looking at me. Again, I think that, I mean, sorry, again, I think that's a personal kind of thing for probably some it will be nothing, for others. From the poster. Yeah, you can laugh, but he's right. Some people really don't respond to content in one way or the other and what does that mean? Well, they have the bias that takes them out of Star Wars completely. Perhaps it is based on trauma in your life or lessons that you've come to learn or a lack of both but that doesn't take anything away from the objective assessment. They can simply admit that the facts don't affect them in one way or the other and that is absolutely fine. I feel like I need to rewrite the opening sequence in terms of the big picture stuff of what's going on. And I freaked out because I'm like, this doesn't track. You can't you can't you can't follow what's happening. You can't follow what the big stakes are. I got really scared. And you see, that's fine. It's only human that you can create something that doesn't quite make sense or is hard to follow, but that doesn't mean that we should sugarcoat it. Let's talk about reality. The sad fact is that social influences like the many I have covered in this video believe that objectivity takes away validity from subjective perspectives of art, reducing the meaning, thus making it a negative endeavor. Not to say I am certain of their perspectives, but it is what I have come to understand from several of them in my opinion. 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 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. As Wolf just laid out, you can now gain enjoyment from it, where you previously may not have done because you didn't register the objective value within the art that could affect your feelings. Thus, in that instance, you increase the enjoyment in the world overall. This is the undeniable result of the pursuit of evidence and reason. We don't always like what we find, but sometimes the facts can not only be reassuring, they can be enlightening. Though it is important to remember that facts do not require that we feel they are valid. They simply have to follow defined rules, be it logic or standards of a craft. So to clarify, a subjective feeling of quality must be felt by the person to be considered valid, and it is not beholden to evidence or consistency whatsoever. Emotion is the bedrock of these assessments. An objective fact of quality must match predetermined measurable criteria and definitions. It follows rules and respects consistency, irrespective of feelings. Logic is the bedrock of these assessments. Both of these forms of analysis have standards, and their quality is defined by the degree to which the standard is satisfied. Be it the satisfaction of your feelings or the satisfaction of the craft. This creates a line between objective quality and subjective quality, while showing how objectivity can affect subjectivity. But that we shouldn't shy away from it out of fear of losing enjoyment. We should embrace it. As the truth isn't designed to hurt you, it is meant to act as an offer to learn and grow. I would like to see our society mature and become more rational, and more knowledge-based, less emotion-based. I'd like to see education play a larger role in our daily lives. And, you know, have people come to a larger understanding, a bigger picture understanding of how we fit into the world and how we fit into the universe. Not necessarily thinking of ourselves, but thinking of others. To write George, think of what you will of the man, but improving critical thinking through the education system is not an idea that many would disagree with. When it comes to facts about media or life itself, there are instances in which the truth will do massive harm and have zero benefits. And thus, we refrain from sharing the truth and we label it a white lie. There should be an important takeaway from that statement. Now, but you've reduced the amount of enjoyment in the world, right? To prevent a loss of enjoyment by avoiding the assessment would be a lie. And since I don't actually intend on sacrificing my integrity, I won't accept a lie. Life and art don't become meaningless by understanding the facts behind them or to understand a bias about yourself. Timmy thought that the Sun was an alien and at night the alien goes to sleep. He later found out the facts and that perspective has now completely changed. The facts exist and you can feel as you do in support of them or regardless of them. Just don't be so stubborn as to assume that what you felt happened is what actually happened. Rewatch, redraft and explore more than just how you felt. And it can be sort of like that thing when you saw a movie a long time ago and you remember a scene one way, but then you watch it again and you're like, oh, that's completely different than I thought it was. Thank you, Ryan. That was bang on the money. But yeah, it all comes under the difference between arguing from emotion or arguing from references and confirmable facts.