A Critique of Star Wars: The Force Awakens - Introduction

[00:00] ABC News: Star Wars: The Force Awakens is being called the film of a generation. Chris Stuckmann: Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens... Angry Joe: (making TIE Fighter sounds)

[00:16] Scott "Movie" Mantz: I gotta buckle up, so I don't get to crazy. Joe, stop hitting me in the face! Jeremy Jahns: Nothing but Staaar Waaars!

[00:32] Chris Stuckmann: (heavy breathing) It was everything I wanted it to be, and more. Repzion: It was everything I ever wanted Star Wars movie to be...

[00:45] ???: Seen the movie, and it kicks ass! ???: I mean it's the best movie of the 7 (movies) by far. Mark Kermode BBC: Very entertaining, very engaging, very um, dramatically solid...

[01:03] Repzion: Um, this movie is incredible, phenomenal, fantastic, excellent... James Rofle (AVGN): I thought it was very exciting. to the franchise.

[01:17] Chris Stuckmann: Guys, in all honesty, I love The Force Awakens. Repzion: (crying tears of joy) I cannot express to you my absolute love for Star Wars. Angry Joe: Thank you J. J. Abrams for saving Star Wars!

[01:32] Carrie Fisher: Please go to this film, if you've heard that it's good. Stephen Colbert: The gravy must be that like, Disney and George Lucas and the fans are so Stephen: ...no one has any critiques of your work.

[01:48] Star Wars fans approved of it... Is the movie great? ???: It's not a great movie and it's certainly not a bad movie.

[02:03] Repzion: However, it's not without it's flaws... Ozzy Man Reviews: Overall, I'd say Disney wanted to have it's cake and eat it too. Jared Genesis: To the haters, of Force Awakens, guys listen,

[02:15] you're letting your nostalgia make you that way. This movie, Force Awakens, WorldClassBullshitters: Hey Dan, what did you think? Dan: I think it was a movie.

[02:28] J. J. Abrams: It's been the funniest thing to see... the arguments that have developed over this thing. The Cosmonaut Variety Hour: If you go on YouTube, you will see countless videos complaining about

[02:41] The Force Awakens, 'cuz everybody likes to complain about this movie. and I think this film is a grand test of this very mantra. movie was simply repurposing everything from A New Hope, and you haven't even

[02:56] Nostalgia Critic: Did it really had to be so similar to the other movies? four billion dollar purchase, that it would be this kind of corporate approach Lyle McDouchebag: Star Wars: The Force of Money!

[03:11] Disappointing. WorldClassBullshitters: Expectations were at zero today honestly, usually I don't even care Nicholas Spargo: So far to say that it is in fact, worse that the prequels.

[03:26] E;R: This farce will never be Star Wars. Search your feelings, you know it to be true. of this movie, because it truly isn't as bad as they say it is.

[03:38] Angry Joe: But maybe, just keep this in mind as people start to pick this thing apart, cuz I've got notes upon notes of where I can pick it apart, um, just realize they do it with love. They don't really know much about movies. They don't know the history, they don't know

[03:53] the technology, they don't know anything. So for them to try to analyze it they're lost.

[04:06] Mauler: Hello there, ladies and gentlemen, I'm Mauler and welcome to a critique I will be covering far more than just the film itself, but as the title implies, If you would like to skip over the introduction, please use the time code and it will take you

[04:24] The introduction is essentially more so about me, my process, what you can expect in the series Though I will say that it is worth having seen the Star Wars saga up to the latest films in the series

[04:37] But seriously, we have a long introduction this time, and there'll be a bunch of topics covered So if you're new and you're here for Star Wars alone, please skip on ahead.

[04:50] Ever since I completed my four videos on The Last Jedi at the start of this year, my channel has grown from 2,000 to 100,000 subscribers.

[05:02] This whole thing has been quite life-changing, and I've been provided some potent encouragement to push right on, including the support to build a new PC that was used and I hope that you enjoy what I put together.

[05:18] So to begin, I think it makes sense to talk a bit about objectivity, considering that will be the to go on a rant about the state of video essays and reviews on YouTube these days.

[05:30] 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

[05:44] to the logical baseline, with some who apparently haven't heard a single counter-argument still trailing At the end of my assessment I said that the film was overall objectively bad in terms of filmmaking.

[05:56] 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. Now, in relation to those who find my channel frustrating, there is an ongoing conversation

[06:14] I have been made an example of by a handful of people as the channel who thinks his opinions are facts. Quinton Reviews: ...or, to put it like he likes to: his opinions are objective.

[06:29] And the opinions of people who disagree with him? Well those, those are just subjective. Mauler: Isn't it so strange that people can't seem to get a quote from my videos that would even remotely resemble that statement? The idea that I tell people they are watching movies wrong, for example,

[06:43] when my discussions are always concerned with the facts you use, and how well researched those are, Anyone is welcome to generate an objective opinion, based solely on the measurable elements

[06:55] of the content, or they can generate a personal subjective opinion based on how they felt. You can't be wrong for how you experience something. unless you are actually wrong about indisputable facts.

[07:11] Mauler: You see, you can do whatever you want, however you want, feel what you want, just don't tell me that an apple is a banana and expect me to say "you are right" As you just heard, Patrick made a great point, but these same people purport that I make statements

[07:27] 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

[07:42] the current state of hollow analysis is on YouTube, why don't we explore their style Patrick: I know it seems impossible to watch movies wrong... Mauler: Oh dear, that seems contradictive, doesn't it?

[07:56] 6 months later... Mauler: This is what I end up hearing from the same people who believe they have more authority to speak on the subject of film analysis than others.

[08:10] 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.

[08:22] Mauler: So, plot holes in favor of payoffs don't matter, but plot contrivances in favor of payoffs do? Patrick, you realize that a plot hole is a plot contrivance, but worse, right? At least with a contrivance, it could happen. A plot hole by definiton is a strict contradiction.

[08:38] It should not happen. You seem to be contradicting yourself quite a lot. Patrick: While I make some videos that are technically film criticism, I don't count as a film critic. Mauler: These people write scripts with more inconsistencies than the films I am trying to criticize.

[08:53] Patrick: Critics are not bought or bribed (sure...). Disney does not pay off critics to trash DC movies. so why would studios waste money on that?

[09:06] Before seeing a movie, I'll skim reactions from critics I trust on Twitter, or glance briefly at their reviews, Why would studios waste money on that?

[09:19] Many people accuse me of inaccurate film criticism too, that I am not aware This is actually a truth, there are a couple of things that I am completely unaware of, and that is a human error,

[09:34] 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:

[09:48] Mauler: Patrick, acid doesn't just burn forever, it will neutralize after it eats through enough material. In fact, that is the immediate concern for the crew of the Nostromo in the film Alien.

[10:02] Mauler: After realizing that it could potentially eat through the hull, they then find the spot where it's reaching its end and comment on it. Never seen anything like that, except molecular acid.

[10:19] Mauler: Do you understand how many contradictions we've reached in just a few minutes? His video on plot holes was so poorly constructed that despite the positive ratings on the video itself, an overwhelming proportion of top comments are in disagreement with him.

[10:32] This reaction is actually very similar to the one H.Bomberguy received 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.

[10:46] 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, His first video was very confusing in structure, conflating his feelings with facts,

[10:59] 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.

[11:11] Similarly to Patrick and hbomberguy, these were despite the positive ratings. This is the kind of thing that will of course happen to me down the line if I fall out of touch. But how you respond to criticism can often say more than the initial statement ever could.

[11:25] 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, This absolves him of any responsibility in his own writing, placing the blame directly on the viewers.

[11:41] These are the kind of videos you end up with when you have a severe lack of self-awareness. actually explained in the movie, if you just pay attention.

[11:55] In Alien, if acid can melt through the floor, why doesn't it melt through the entire ship? Brett: It stopped. Never seen anything like that, except molecular acid. Mauler: Patrick and many others like him are so woefully beyond inconsistent that their only recourse

[12:11] is to invent quotes from their opposition, in order to make them look more ridiculous by comparison. While this backward logic is splattered across different conversational threads, my channel has been

[12:23] 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 Honestly, you should expect more of that as my channel grows, since making enemies is just par for the course

[12:41] on the Internet, especially when you tell someone that something they enjoy is poorly crafted. 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.

[12:55] They are fully aware of the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, It simply doesn't apply when it's their sacred cow, thus they end up taking criticism as a personal insult,

[13:09] Besides, it's much easier to simply smear people who disagree with you, rather than open a discussion. Quinton: To state that your opinions, which mostly come down to things like thoughts about the lore

[13:22] and nitpicks about dialogue, are objective facts that can never be disputed by anyone, is ridiculous. Mauler: Uh huh, well, you can sit down for now, I have some important stuff to get out of the way.

[13:34] 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,

[13:49] with no regard for what the very definitions of those words even are. And with more and more controversial discussions taking place, you will eventually find that the word "opinion" is thrown around far more than references to the topic being discussed.

[14:04] that there is no such thing as good or bad content, that everyone is simply sharing their perspective. Participation is now enough to celebrate quality.

[14:20] It's as if they no longer want to recognize how well the goal was completed, Of course, this doesn't apply when talking about The Room, or Birdemic,

[14:33] 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.

[14:45] 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. so you will only find it happening with the things they so desperately want beaten into the ground.

[15:03] Ultimately, if you subscribe to these channels, their standards get very confusing, so I say I think I should be clear in saying that anyone, including myself, likely in this very series of videos,

[15:16] will eventually in their lives create bad pieces of content, and it can be assessed for a conclusion. Let's start with getting facts wrong, that would be a big one. "Black Panther: An Unbridled Rage" We open up in the 1970s with two characters that have a plan to share weaponry to community

[15:31] - No, it was set in 1992. What's wrong with you? and it comes across as the game falling asleep.

[15:44] - Don't you know that the Jester robes are immune to backstabs, you hack! -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?

[15:59] Because there is objective information that I failed to research correctly. I made mistakes in the art I created. My work is therefore flawed, This is possible when you understand that objectivity exists in art.

[16:14] 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.

[16:26] This approach to analysis is novel and often times very entertaining, but it will leave you Especially when you begin to completely contradict your own thesis without even realizing it.

[16:38] or are too dumb to understand how to play something, or don't realize that something they think is good Some people really like Fallout 3, and they seem to be the specific type of people who think clicking a

[16:52] In other words: objectively stupid people like Fallout 3. You can hide behind a shield a lot, die over and over trying to memorize every encounter,

[17:06] or wear the heaviest armor and hope that'll save you, but the reality is it's just more fun playing it as someone who dodges and weaves, who parries, and who uses situational awareness to assess a situation.

[17:20] Mauler: You guys remember hbomberguy. He acknowledged my existence again on Twitter. and in relation to someone saying they couldn't be bothered to watch any more "Have you ever eaten something bad and stopped, or realized there were eight more courses and stopped?

[17:39] Because I think people who do that might still have some relevant criticism." "That is an interesting analogy and had someone watched Part 1 and offered criticism for it, that the entire meal tastes bad is simply not useful at all."

[17:55] [Completely Unrelated Audio Clip]: "Clearly behaving like someone who definitely isn't mad that they got Mauler: But recently, the topic of objectivity versus subjectivity came up, and I received this from Harris:

[18:11] "You're 100% entitled to your opinion and you noticed a bunch of genuine mistakes I made in the video, that approach tiresome are just scared of the truth, is a bit of an overstep."

[18:24] [Completely Unrelated Audio Clip]: "I love being acknowledged by my peers online. It makes me feel... Mauler: So I responded by asking why he's trying to make me look crazy by implying that I think Though I shouldn't be suprised, he's not the first intellectual to misrepresent my work.

[18:41] hbomberguy: "I don't think you're a bad person. I simply don't agree with your approach to video game criticism. It's a little immature to write as if you have achieved objectivity and I'm out to make you look crazy for it, and I'd recommend like, chilling out? lol"

[18:53] Mauler: You are damn right, Harris. So he will continue to ignore me, or take potshots when available, instead of having a discussion. about the first interaction I had with him. He pointed out a criticism of mine that was not valid,

[19:10] as it was clearly taking a joke seriously. I responded that even if it were a joke, I provided context, so that the viewers would understand that and choose to ignore me, I kept getting notifications of that conversation as time went on, likely because

[19:25] 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, As a result, he has apparently decided to delete the tweet entirely, to remove that mistake from memory.

[19:44] hbomberguy: It's the closest I think I've seen someone come to admitting that they've lost. It appears that I owned him so hard, with such bulletproof reasoning, that he didn't even mention me or my video directly, despite the fact that we have mutual friends,

[19:57] so I know he's seen the video and I know it really pissed him off. Mauler: He later admitted that yes, there are mistakes in Dark Souls 2 and his video on it, but they are not flaws in overall game design, objectively.

[20:09] They are mistakes, but they are not flaws... 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,

[20:21] It's a little bit unsporting, that's all. hbomberguy: I promise to not do that, eventually, when I grow up, one day. At this point, the concept has practically drawn a line between two types of critical analysis.

[20:38] 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

[20:53] How you feel may remain with you, but that doesn't mean you should stop listening to other people, exploring the content with any depth, or allowing yourself to experience even more. Instead, there's this idea that you should hold onto that one narrow perspective,

[21:09] which is detrimental to communication, especially if it's based on false information. 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.

[21:25] It's a fantastic tool for the modern analyst, it's like a free pass. it's all just an opinion. maybe that was my opinion of the date; it was my experience of the date.

[21:41] Do you see how useful it is to construct essays that way? hbomberguy: I shouldn't be allowed to talk about Dark Souls anymore... Someone should just f***ing come and stop me before I make a mother f***ing idiot of myself.

[21:54] 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.

[22:10] will still employ that objective standard at their own leisure, But to label something you found to be factual as objective is not something these guys want to do.

[22:25] It means that there is no safety net to fall back on, no chance to say You're essentially saying that your content is correct.

[22:37] So if it turns out to be incorrect when information is fact-checked or new information arises, 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.

[22:53] Jay Bauman: Btw, when they let her out of the cage, and they're heading into the city for their mission, she's like texting the Joker? Why does she have a cellphone? Mike Stoklasa: Um... maybe she hid it in...

[23:05] Mike: Maybe she found one while they were walking around on the street, I really don't know. It's from "Mr. J". You gonna tell him I took care of you?

[23:18] Mauler: RedLetterMedia created an assessment of Suicide Squad. This was a writing flaw they cited to assist in proving a conclusion about the film's poor quality, So, they acknowledged the error, and despite that flaw in their assessment, their conclusion was

[23:35] 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.

[23:47] To be wrong is to have your position weakened, so that is unacceptable and therefore everyone is right. 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

[24:02] 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. but I hope it's clear I'm just offering my opinion in a way I think is interesting, or convincing.

[24:18] Mauler: But you can't criticize them for that, because they begin and end their pieces with that good-old disclaimer, or as it should be known: "the safety net". Downward Thrust: Hey guys, before I start this video off, I just want to say that this video

[24:30] The core of the game was a disappointment for me. The ashes for me had burnt out. This is only my opinion, I know there is a lot of Dark Souls fans out there. It still felt a bit hollow. Personally, I think Dark Souls is a true masterpiece...

[24:46] For me personally though, I feel like the fire has gone out in the latter titles. This is just my opinion, yours may vary.

[24:58] Mauler: Yes, those were all from one 15-minute video. These disclaimers are everywhere, and they are incorporated by many prominent creators, and I am NOT saying that you should never use it. I simply have some points to make.

[25:14] 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, Conversely, if a video presents strong arguments on a subject,

[25:29] 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.

[25:45] 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,

[25:59] Otherwise, it will end up in sentences that absolutely didn't require it in the first place. Tywin Lannister: No, that's not an opinion, it's a fact!

[26:12] Mauler: The Sun being a star is, of course, a judgment or view we can hold, making it an opinion by definition, but discussion does not require the disclaimer of "in my opinion"

[26:25] before stating the Sun is a star, because we all have the refined information available Several standards are used to measure whether the Sun reaches the requirements of being a star.

[26:37] and "in my opinion" becomes redundant. It is only when we share subjective opinions, or unsupported opinions that we need that disclaimer, "this game inconsistent hitboxes - in my opinion", does not absolve you from scrutiny

[26:57] Saying "the Sun is beautiful - in my opinion" cannot be proven wrong, due to its subjectivity. Beautiful is inherently a qualifier that is subjective.

[27:09] "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

[27:22] 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.

[27:34] 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 It is simple: you present the objective criteria, then you satisfy the objective criteria

[27:52] 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.

[28:06] 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... Mauler:... you are not only creating content with the amount of substance that is on par

[28:23] with a "thumbs up or down" for each subject, you have also admitted that you have so little faith in your own perspective that you had to put a pre-emptive scrutiny shield in front of it. But don't assume that I'm immune from this. I am absolutely guilty of it too.

[28:37] It's just something I try to avoid when writing, and it makes the process much longer, hence why I still haven't said it in other than quotations yet. I understand though, holding (Holdo) a position like "the Last Jedi as a masterpiece of a script"

[28:49] but to then use the definition of an opinion as a preventative measure from evidence that counters You can still like the content, you can still feel whatever you will, but stop asserting that

[29:05] it is logically written, when it is proven not to be by any logical standard. And from there, the party with the false or lacking information, in this case being the video essay,

[29:18] 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,

[29:34] and whether or not that is the motivation, there is this rising obsession with the idea that logic is a faulty metric for both character assessments in storytelling, This all makes sense because humans are inherently emotional, and they're not logical whatsoever.

[29:50] 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.

[30:04] Mauler: The issue here is that the word "logical" is being used in two different ways at the same time. If a character behaves illogically because of a previously established character trait, What happened made sense with who they are.

[30:19] In this case, Patrick is referring to the film A Quiet Place, the story of a world Patrick makes the argument that we should not expect the characters to behave logically, However, the reason that the entire video is often referenced as a straw man is because

[30:36] the complaint is not that they behave illogically, it's that their character writing is illogical. making very creative decisions to account for this dire situation that shows intelligence and care,

[30:50] yet they blatantly ignore several options provided to them by the environment that are proven by the film These logical contradictions in their characters are made to generate drama in the storyline,

[31:02] 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:

[31:17] 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

[31:30] effect of his snap, versus what his intentions are. That is logically consistent writing for an emotionally irrational or illogical character, and that is the nuance that you will rarely find in assessments nowadays,

[31:43] 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,

[31:59] 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.

[32:12] Why would you ever pay more for a writer than any other? Why would they teach it? it'll have the very same amount of substance as the common reviews that open with:

[32:25] 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

[32:38] The Dishonoured Wolf: ...even though that movie is objectively horrible. But I wouldn't describe it like.. I don't like using, like the word "objectively"

[32:53] is just, it's very... it's tough to use that word in regards to art, right? "Actually, I like it, because of such-and-such reason, this happened in my life", right? And then it's not objective, right? It's not objective if one person disagrees with it.

[33:08] Mauler: Objective has nothing to do with whether people agree world wide, that is nonsense. This is an active attempt at making the word taboo to use in modern analytical discussion. Bookending your video with "in my opinion" will actually stymie the flow of critical responses

[33:27] from the audience, because they will parrot this disclaimer as if it means anything, Many channels will lower their own standards to a point where 10 minutes As long as they get their scripts out and they tie it all together with subjectivity,

[33:43] they can make content quicker and quicker, they can cover more eye-catching subjects, 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.

[33:59] HelloGreedo: I cannot think of a bigger waste of time than debating art. Mauler: My goodness, how sad is that? Not to mention it's completely hypocritical. Just how good or bad something truly is, while taking into account other arguments

[34:17] 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. but these videos are designed to evoke feelings in the viewer.

[34:32] It's not like they are simply instructional videos telling you how to prevent Sony Vegas from freezing 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.

[34:46] That means they are open to scrutiny and it doesn't just stop the second you say "in my opinion". Let me give you an example: Jonathan McIntosh created the video in defense of the Last Jedi. He made several claims, including that "male hatred" for the film was based on

[35:00] the female characters offering advice and helping the male characters fulfill their arcs, And from there, the angry male fans have trouble with that because it is ingrained into them

[35:12] In order to achieve proving this theory, he will actively ignore many facts of the narrative, It serves to give the assessment a little push in the direction that best suits his narrative,

[35:24] but it's subtle, and so people get sidetracked as to what point McIntoshes Pop Culture Detective (McIntosh): The Last Jedi is a movie that's designed to Finn's intentions are selfish and driven by a lack of faith.

[35:42] He's convinced that the fight against the First Order is a lost cause. Remember folks, soft-spoken, and fragile, to sell that emotional resonance.

[35:56] Finn makes it clear that he is motivated to leave in order to save Ray's life, Which is true, because Holdo has let her crew believe there is no hope.

[36:08] That there's hope! Finn: Sorry, but this fleet is doomed. If my friend comes back to it, she's doomed too. Mauler: So, Finn choosing to save someone by leaving is inherently selfless,

[36:24] 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, These details are part of why the film's script is so heavily flawed.

[36:38] There was an attempt to send several messages, but they are actively at odds with the narrative I understand that these ideas and these themes exist, but they are not effectively executed.

[36:50] Both McIntosh and Johnson have a narrative to sell and we hold both of their scripts accountable for their consistency, but saying "in my opinion" doesn't suddenly mean You are not now immune to criticism.

[37:06] They ignore counter-arguments and information that could cause cognitive dissonance, They add "in my opinion" to imply that you can't address their fabricated references at all.

[37:21] 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

[37:34] in both its own rules and the rules supplied by its universe after an in-depth assessment The people who agreed with McIntosh agreed before the video was released. They were simply waiting for a mouthpiece to address the film from a gendered perspective,

[37:49] 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 The people who watch and agree, and the people who don't watch and don't agree were both

[38:06] doing it for the same reason: because of the political bias in the assessment. And so, this is how divides are created, and how discourse is destroyed.

[38:18] his narrative is simply that of showing gender-driven politics in media, Downward Thrust's narrative is reporting on the doom and destruction that is the gaming industry, Patrick William's narrative is to undermine the self-taught critics of YouTube, as he wants

[38:34] who just watches movies and points out plot holes. Essayists will forget about the facts that ruin their narrative. We all have a narrative, mine is trying to get to to the logical baseline for every element in a

[38:48] script under an objective writing standard, and so I provide you references that are researched, and my opinion is rarely relevant, because I have to follow what is seen and heard, and then relay that to you guys, which is essentially Quinton's biggest mistake.

[39:01] He thinks I'm sharing my opinion of the Last Jedi when I say there are contradictions because he is yet another person who uses opinion as a shield from criticism. That judgment was objective, supported by references.

[39:17] If it is inaccurate and based on faulty information, then please scrutinize me. What it won't do is prompt me to say: "it's just my opinion, leave me alone." He is that sure of his perspective, which in a way is respectable,

[39:34] if only he would explore the people who completely disagree to get to the bottom of the subject. Don't avoid it just because ignorance is bliss, and you have trouble with the idea of exploring

[39:47] 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,

[40:01] but it's actually less of an echo chamber than most communities, because we all hammer out All of us have a certain amount of information, which will be more or less than the next person.

[40:13] 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.

[40:28] People learn there, because objectivity isn't always easy, and anyone is capable of working with it. These people tend to have a company line to follow, Patrick: This is a film about space wizards intended for children.

[40:44] Patrick: I think this movie is goddamn incredible. It is easily the best Star Wars movie since the Empire Strikes Back, and today we're gonna talk about why. Patrick: We're talking about a movie about space wizards intended for children.

[40:58] Patrick: I haven't stopped thinking about the Last Jedi. And to all the people who hate it, I wish that you could see what I see, because it's pretty great. Mauler: And if you don't consider an objective standpoint to be a narrative, you might be able

[41:14] 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.

[41:30] So please, take it from me, objectivity does not have the intention of invalidating feelings, That part is subjective, and hey, you can use the word "opinion" all over your analysis when

[41:42] describing thoughts and feelings, but I would try and avoid it when you're simply using it to ignore contradictive information, just to believe your own lie, or in some cases, in the hopes of mixing the objective and the subjective.

[41:55] If a creator keeps telling you that it's just their opinion, then try and imagine 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.

[42:09] Maybe they misunderstood their own subjective experience for a factual reference. 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.

[42:23] 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. Well, it would be their references compared to reality, it would be the patterns they find,

[42:38] If you don't care about proof and you were simply looking for validation, 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

[42:53] the exact opposite with conflicting references to the script, meaning there is no discussion, in comes the safety net. Mauler: In the context of discussion about art, objectivity is the idea of explaining what happened

[43:10] 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.

[43:23] Both of these offer great insight, but they need to be separated for the sake of communication, But interestingly, mixing them together allows people to get away with making objectively terrible videos that do well in terms of a view count.

[43:37] Video essays were essentially a format in which people could share research on a topic, to help an audience understand something large in a bite-sized format. On the video game side, Super Bunnyhop and Matthewmatosis were some of the pillars

[43:49] that ended up fostering the creation of people like Downward Thrust and Cleanprintsgaming. On the movie side, you have Every Frame a Painting and Lessons from the Screenplay, acting as inspiration, while also giving rise to channels like Pop Culture Detective and Just Write.

[44:03] 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.

[44:16] or they say absolutely inaccurate statements instead. But on both sides of film and games, the element they failed to copy is the writing quality,

[44:28] 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

[44:41] 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:

[44:55] "let's listen to that random guy who might have something to say, The video essay community has essentially become the commentary community.

[45:07] 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, Only, by comparison with video essayists they make some things seem a lot more important

[45:25] This kind of content is encouraged. and thankfully as time goes on, these people are being called out more and more,

[45:38] 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?

[45:52] Well, it shouldn't, because I haven't figured this all out yet, and many words come with more 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.

[46:06] 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, However, this is the bedrock of critical analysis, and so it's a very complicated subject

[46:21] that cannot be completely explained in one hour, which is beside that fact that I am still learning. it accounts for the methods of that the other essayists employee,

[46:33] Jonathan McIntosh: The Last Jedi is a story about men learning to trust women's ideas and decisions, and then becoming better people and better heroes because of it.

[46:46] It's a vital lesson that men need to learn if we are to achieve gender equality. Mauler: The biggest problem I face is having false information or poor research. The biggest problem they face is having the viewers actually listen to their videos.

[46:59] Mauler: Oh, there it is again. Rags: Yeah, there it is again... Rags: Good to get the confirmation that there is a correct - or yeah, there is a correct - objectively!

[47:13] There is correct and an incorrect way to watch movies. This is a thing that people us that we say and we're wrong for saying that, Mauler: Once you spot all of the blatant contradictions in a video essay, you'll be able to find what

[47:31] with the worst researched videos, there's always a motive. on YouTube is probably not going to have much to offer.

[47:43] Quinton: Saying that every angry gamer is trying to be James Rolfe is like saying that moviebob: Mobile games are for moms and casuals and those people suck and I hate them for some reasonin the case of this Diablo business. It's less about resentment at you not getting a hypothetical something,

[47:59] and feeling good about it. (did you catch all of that folks?) Jonathan McIntosh: Many of these guys can't help but view a woman who's serving as teacher to a male hero as anything other than preachy, annoying or emasculating.

[48:14] The fact that Rose also happens to be played by an actress of color only magnifies their anger. I f***ing hate Trump. I would be a much happier person if we found a way deport him from every

[48:31] Mauler: 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.

[48:43] pesky disclaimers in the first place. 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.

[48:58] 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

[49:10] has opened up all the conversations once again among many Star Wars fans. These conversations include: Just how well-written is the entire saga exactly? Are the originals actually classics, or just average?

[49:25] We already know that these questions are a tad hyperbolic, and there are plenty of Mr. Plinkett: Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was the most disappointing thing since my son.

[49:39] Mauler: Plinkett sort of covered the Force Awakens, though I guess I would say hackfraudmedia did a And hell, Plinkett can do as he wishes when it comes to Star Wars, Mr. Plinkett: So after a certain online critic deconstructed the prequels, and explained in

[49:54] Someone who basically changed the way the Internet complains about movies, and paved the way for other youtubers to complain endlessly about movies. especially when there are many content creator that predate you.

[50:10] And thankfully, RedLetterMedia actually released a video on the Last Jedi, and despite throwing their hat in later than many, they added plenty of substance to the conversation, discovering even more flaws in the Last Jedi, that many,

[50:24] Either way, throughout these videos you're going to see several clips pop up 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.

[50:39] in depth, spoilers, secrets and all things in between. But someone hasn't quite done that yet. I only have the one Star Wars critique under my belt, and I'd like that to change.

[50:54] but I think it makes sense to take a look back at the Force Awakens as my second critique, and now, especially after several other reviews, the quality has been brought into question,

[51:10] similarly to other content in the Star Wars saga once time passes. Especially in this case, when we have it's sequel to answer for so many of its setups. It will also allow me to spread the bedrock in preparation for an analysis of episode IX

[51:22] when it releases, being that I should probably approach the first two films in the trilogy I am going to try my best to remain consistent and approach every film in the franchise until completing an in-depth look into the scripts for them all.

[51:38] I won't be using harsh swear words in this series until the Force Awakens has been fully covered. I have a few guest spots from other youtubers that have agreed to share their perspective

[51:51] 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,

[52:05] 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

[52:19] 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 this stuff in one big bunch. asking the cast to make noises and impressions.

[52:33] (mating call) (more animal noises) Gwendoline Christie: Is it that? You should know, is it that?

[52:48] (please stop) Harrison Ford: With the, with the theme of the Force, and, and all that good stuff. Oh my God, I sound like Santa!

[53:01] (lightsaber noises) (have mercy) Mauler: Anything could pop up in this series, it's gonna be pretty mysterious.

[53:14] I have no way of knowing, it's such a mysterious thing. it's a phenomenon.

[53:26] Mauler: But once again, third party lore and information from other shows, or comics or books is not going to be permitted as an explanation for weak writing in the script itself. It is important to add that as we advance, you will not agree with everything I'm going to conclude on.

[53:42] My video should be evidence of that, but I will make objective mistakes, to let me know where I have stumbled. if enough should rise.

[53:57] but I would ask that you don't add the tagline: "Mauler will prove your feelings wrong." This isn't what I'm here to do folks, I'm here to create an objective assessment for those who are interested

[54:09] Even if other content creators twist what my intentions actually are for an easy sucker punch, That goes the same for targeted harassment of cast and crew members in these productions.

[54:22] 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, be humble about mistakes that we do end up making.

[54:37] There are many videos that already explore the pros and cons of Star Wars as a whole, 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

[54:53] In any case, I have tried to provide as much of my own content for this topic as possible, As some of you guys know, I have one of those typical histories with Star Wars for my generation,

[55:06] being that I saw the first six episodes as a kid, and the Force Awakens was the only one I viewed and on release TFA was the peak of discussion for our culture, as most Star Wars movies end up being.

[55:19] But we are far past release and we have a wealth of perspectives about the film from numerous sources. So, the purpose of this series of videos is to assess the quality of the Force Awakens, to analyze the film with strong reference to it's sequel, to compare writing techniques

[55:34] 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

[55:49] and like many humans on this planet, I was a little blindsided Though that and where the money was made should not be the judge of what makes a quality script.

[56:01] Mark Hamill: My larger point was: it doesn't matter if it's good, as long as it makes money. So, because the Force Awakens made a lot of money, I can't be, it's not "ergo, it's good".

[56:14] Mauler: Either way, once the veil was lifted and the shell-shocking nature of Disney Star Wars and notice the writing flaws on the spot. This likely contributed to the mass negative reaction to the Last Jedi.

[56:28] 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.

[56:40] are quality in the future, but for now I want to conduct an assessment and find what the positives and the negatives of this script are, and then come to a conclusion. For those of you who are shocked that I've spent an excessive 5 hours on one film in my last critique,

[56:56] it may behoove you to know that I created a 10 hour series in response to a 1 hour video Five hours is actually quick work for me, compared to how long I would prefer a series to be. And shockingly for Houston, Turbo, hbomb, Folding Ideas, and many, many commenters,

[57:12] and the population of the moviecirclejerk subreddit, saying that a video is long doesn't actually You need to be more specific. Many are propagating a myth, and it goes like this: "If you create a review of a film and it's longer than a film, then it's a bad review."

[57:28] But let me ask you this: have you ever spoken with a friend about a scene in a film? Have you ever discussed these moments and their structure with a friend for longer than the scene itself?

[57:43] Let me make this simpler: have you ever discussed a line of dialogue? Ellen Ripley: Get away from her, you bitch!

[57:55] Colonel Jessup: You can't handle the truth! Proprietor: Sir? Chigurh: The most. You ever lost. On a coin toss.

[58:08] Hannibal Lecter: I didn't. Clarice: No, no you ate yours.

[58:20] Snape: Always. I could do that. Darth Vader: I am your father.

[58:36] Mauler: These moments occupy extremely small amounts of screen time, yet you can spent hours with friends going over everything that makes them so powerful, because in an assessment you are trying to break down all of the pieces of design that work to create that very moment,

[58:49] to explain the craft behind it and why it's worth celebrating. 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.

[59:06] 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. All you need to do is have an actual citation when you criticize someone. Is that so hard?

[59:22] I have a rather large pile of references and ultimately the title is simply what you'll be hearing The reality is that if I were to show you the third-party research clips alone, all in a row, So again, come up with a better criticism, this one is boring me.

[59:38] Though I have no recommendations for a circle jerk community, the whole premise is that their hive mind dare not be challenged, so... keep going, I guess? Despite all of that though, my general audience may still not be prepared to find out

[59:52] that this series is going to be about 15 hours long, cut across six videos releasing weekly. For those who think they understand such intellectuals like "Will. I. Am Shakesman" and his famous quotes, I have something to tell you about "Brevity is the soul of wit".

[1:00:08] 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. What if you watch two movies in a row?

[1:00:21] 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.

[1:00:35] Being concise isn't exactly about being strictly short, but in a way it's about being as short as you can for what you are trying to achieve. I redraft my work as I said, and I will try and cut out as much of the repetition

[1:00:48] or filler in the script that I can find, leaving it to be essentially several months worth of work on as many sources as I could find, crammed into 15 hours that is bite-sized that these things originally came from.

[1:01:01] What I'm saying here is that, if you have a criticism of the length of the videos, And besides, you have to consider girth ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) I know I wouldn't watch it all in one go myself, so with that knowledge,

[1:01:17] Combined with the concise logic that is being used right now, And hey, you can criticize anybody with Mr. Shakesman now, isn't that brilliant?

[1:01:30] Either way, I am sadly not quite there, but perhaps one day I will have a series I have given this script 7 full redrafts, and it is in a position I am proud of. Rian Johnson: You know, invariably it's awful, it's terrible, the first cut is like, you know...

[1:01:51] Mauler: Yes it is, Rian. Well, without further ado, welcome to an extended look into I think it's best to start right where we did for the last critique,

[1:02:04] But the mere idea that this film exists is an admittance of something important. The saga was complete, which means the mere concept of the Force Awakens is to remove the last page of the proverbial book of the original trilogy, and continue the story on the page

[1:02:20] And thus, we are going to have plenty to discuss from the get-go. I hope you're ready.

[1:02:38] Caddicarus: So, Star Wars, the name that either causes the brain to erupt in euphoric glee Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle, mostly because Star Wars was not a film series in some of the vile hatred and violent love some will show towards it.

[1:02:55] The first Star Wars film I watched was the Phantom Menace when it first came out in 1999, however, not for the reason of Jar Jar jiggling his metaphorical keys at my face. for all the related video games and LEGO sets of the Phantom Menace, despite me knowing

[1:03:13] boring films I've ever seen, and even today I can't enjoy it with my newfound appreciation Revenge of the Sith I find alright. The original trilogy though, opened up my eyes a little bit

[1:03:25] The practical effects, the vivid realism of the sets, the character arcs, the presence of the actors, the themes - it's all classic cinema that I recommend anybody should check out. Rogue One wasn't bad, and the Last Jedi from a technical, entertainment, acting

[1:03:42] Plus, the amount of ways it surprised me with ideas and scenes, completely different in places, but it mostly felt fresh for a 40-year-old series.

[1:03:54] for even some entries, like Return of the Jedi. Not for fan service, Here's the thing: despite me having differing opinions towards all individual films, I have

[1:04:08] always looked to them in the same kind of way: operatic, family-friendly space adventures that were heavily merchandise-oriented, even from the original trilogy. I have things I like and dislike in every single movie because of this view towards them, aside from

[1:04:23] episode II, which I just can't stand. I can't look at episode VII and VIII as a betrayal to its classic routes, nor can I call them masterpieces, because they all hit the same To some degree, in my eyes, each film in the entire saga has emotional moments, funny moments,

[1:04:39] but some of them have a lot of more of that than others, and some don't have them at all. can get at points. Once again, some more than other,

[1:04:51] and it's this balance that intrigues me with Star Wars. Episode I, II and Solo take themselves far too seriously for me, and two I just find a complete mess as a Star Wars and standalone film. But the rest I can sit back and enjoy for that special giddiness only that that series is able to muster.

[1:05:05] And as for abusing the actors of films that we don't like is concerned, because nothing will ever top the Empire Strikes Back, the original films had Ewoks, Boba Fett's pathetic death, Leia not deciding what accent to do, useless stormtroopers, the Holiday Special...

[1:05:17] It's just good old-fashioned fun, and some have better moments to carry it along. Criticism is indeed important, but being abusive towards it won't change either the minds of the people They are what they are: it's Star Wars.

[1:05:37] Along with many of the elements of the film's themselves, the Star Wars title crawl was inspired by adventure serials that George Lucas had previously enjoyed when growing up, as many may or may not know, but it is not one-of-a-kind in its purpose.

[1:05:52] Many films require an opening with text of sorts to essentially establish history or rules, This will ease the audience into acclimating with a world that has minor or major differences

[1:06:04] or having a few key elements changed, like the addition of superpowers in people. Charles Francis Xavier: Mutation. It is the key to our evolution.

[1:06:16] It has enabled us to evolve from a single-celled organism into the dominant species on the planet. But every few hundred millennia, evolution leaps forward. Mauler: Of course, there is no real limit on what you can talk about in the opening to your story.

[1:06:30] You can go on forever because the world is never strictly finished in terms of building it is a whole universe, after all, that's why books tend to win in the thoroughness of that aspect.

[1:06:42] there is so much more to have to deal with in terms of a set up. We need all of the new rules of the world that differ from our own in order to create the stakes. we know what abilities humans have at their disposal, but with these incredible new worlds,

[1:07:00] New life, new technology and the history of the world need to be provided to the audience, If you don't bother establishing the relevant information, or you contradict it as you progress,

[1:07:14] The audience needs to know what is possible and what is not possible. Otherwise, climactic events might just seem tacked on to save the day, or end the day. In film, you establish rules of what you see and hear throughout the scenes.

[1:07:29] Technology, life and lore get their tidbits while the story unfolds, Though it is wise to get a lot of that explanation done quickly with the opening; with the title crawl,

[1:07:41] The rules of this new world could be dictated, the life could be described, Ultimately the drama of what is going to be shown is supposed to be given context;

[1:07:54] a set of rules so that we are ready to be invested, as opposed to being confused. With something like Star Wars in 1977, the title crawl acts as a shortcut in terms of world building. It is established that there is a civil war on galactic level, and one side is described as evil,

[1:08:09] so we are already clear on who we will be rooting for, and who is going to be the enemy. There are bad guys and good guys. Then we get the information on a fight that sets up the film and why it is important.

[1:08:23] The bad guys have a massive weapon, and the good guys have the means to destroy it, Well, we didn't need to see it anyway... Mauler: Finally, we get an introduction to a character and specific information.

[1:08:35] Princess Leia, custodian of the plans to the weapon is moving the plans to her people So that is pretty fantastic for three paragraphs, and the resulting scenes take care of the rest

[1:08:47] It's about as dense as one could be for such a limited amount of time, The Star Wars title crawls have always been an important writing tool from as early as the first film. It is a moment for the writers to sit down

[1:09:00] with a viewer directly and explain the set up without the risk of breaking the fourth wall, So after each of the six films and their long-running story, beginning with the accumulation of power for a growing Empire, and ending with its destruction,

[1:09:14] it is clear that the title crawl will be massively important to continue this universe. Well, whatever this movie is about to offer, I'm sure I'll be able to get through it really fast. I won't get hung up on every last event, every last scene, every last word...

[1:09:28] "Luke Skywalker has vanished." Mauler: We already know that this film will not be standing on its own, it'll be using the source material and subsequently developing on it.

[1:09:42] It is by design meant to further an existing tale, whether that decision is ill-advised or not. or *ahem*

[1:09:54] The past is alive and well, and is being developed. Therefore, in the interest of being a sequel, how does this film respect the previous ones and remain consistent? "Luke Skywalker has vanished."

[1:10:08] while tackling the scenes in order to offer some more insight chronologically. In this instance, we know that Luke is not going to be in this film, aside from the final scene, Many people might have assumed that he would simply be in his own "B" plot alongside the main story,

[1:10:24] but the reality is that Luke is only in it for a handful of seconds, and he has no dialogue. The only thing longtime fans will usually want answered at this point, before declaring that this is a bad choice is rather simple: why has he been missing for so long in universe?

[1:10:38] And once they reach the end of this film, the question remains with a simple addition: is the sequel that he's a part of going to make up for this choice to leave him out, until the last minute? But that would be a matter of reading just a little too far ahead.

[1:10:54] What's the very first words in the crawl? I said: "Ooh, this is gonna be goood."

[1:11:06] It's quite a mystery and we can't wait to find out what the reason behind it is, Mauler: Right, yeah, we're gonna tackle that,

[1:11:18] Put simply, it was a bold move to have one of the successful movie franchises A character recognized across the world is now relegated to a cameo.

[1:11:30] and they can become established, before having the screen time And that works just fine for many franchises... In fact, I'm on board with the idea myself, it makes sense because

[1:11:47] we will not care about anyone that is new, as much as we would care with Luke. Though, the drawback is of course, the confusion of our hero being missing in his own storyline. which is why for this film choosing to lack a detailed explanation can be accepted,

[1:12:03] as long as the eventual answer to the question makes up for the loss. Mauler: Either way, the next line is very important. "In his absence, the sinister First Order has risen from the ashes of the Empire

[1:12:17] and will not rest until Skywalker, the last Jedi, has been destroyed." So after the initial surprise for Luke, we have this crucial line to redefine the landscape. Their apparent goal is to destroy Luke, and it is implied that they were able to rise

[1:12:33] This will raise a question or two. No. Many were involved in the Empire's suppression, with plenty more ready to sign up,

[1:12:46] So we need better reasoning for the Empire to be concerned with Luke's demise Is this new Empire only concerned with the death of Luke

[1:12:58] Because there should be plenty of other threats. Why treat it as though Luke is the only adversary of the Empire? Are there no new Jedi? Did Luke train no one?

[1:13:11] We will get more, rather ridiculous answers on that in the future, which will act as a major cutoff to the idea of new force users approaching the series. Considering how the original trilogy closed out with a strong potential to reinvigorate that aspect.

[1:13:25] this removed the potential for many character ideas. Having the abilities of a force user offers a large amount of agency for a character, and so if they don't like the way the world is, they can change it

[1:13:38] with far more effectiveness than a man with a pistol, or a low-level politician, I mean, why do you think people are so obsessed with the Knights of Ren? We know nothing about them, but they might use the Force, they might have advanced weaponry,

[1:13:51] they might be able to tell us more about Luke, and all of this means they might have a lot of power and agency, and they might offer more details in relation to the gap between episode VI and VII. Throwing several force users with different goals or conflicting ideas together

[1:14:04] Not to say that you can't have an effective story or conflict without Jedi, or Force users, but for those coming back to this franchise with the hope of seeing the iconic elements were now concerned, knowing that the world is extremely limited

[1:14:19] That's a choice the writers made, and of course we have new Force users, but we are simply shunted in that respect, and it is for no other reason than the writers wanting it to be that specific way, to tell that specific story,

[1:14:34] Limited Force users was almost a core part of the original trilogy, Restrictions like that don't prevent a great story from being told,

[1:14:46] They could have had a whole new generation of Force users in training, each with their own stories, In fact, this choice to apply dramatic limits when the opportunities were endless, was probably

[1:14:59] an aid of crafting a narrative that was as close to episode IV as possible, But then the goal changed from cloning the old, to generating as many Force users as they could This scene alone ensures the potential of hundreds of Star Wars films to come,

[1:15:16] But the limitations that they had to write themselves out of, were set by themselves in the first place. Both of the writing decisions at the beginning of The Force Awakens and the end of The Last Jedi,

[1:15:28] in relation to changing the number of active Force users are fundamentally backwards. rather than serving consistency in the world, when the time we spent away gave the world a chance to bloom in all aspects,

[1:15:46] The world is now being described as though Luke is the only one who had the power to hold back the tide of the Empire, despite there being an entire faction performing it as well. A faction that, as far as we knew, had been in power for the past 30 years.

[1:16:01] Despite that, the First Order has risen. they will erase the Jedi as a collective, resulting in a reign that cannot be challenged.

[1:16:14] Not only implying that Luke has trained no one over this expanse of time that hasn't apparently died, but that the Jedi are down to a single member, despite being aligned with the reining government. Mark Hamill: ...and now we have this thirty year gap between the films, so a lot of it is conjecture.

[1:16:32] I mean we can't really, it's not specifically my story. So I think you'll find some thing that might suprise you, and they certainly suprised me. Mauler: Luke was indeed the last Jedi in episode VI, but the whole point once they were victorious

[1:16:48] was that Luke had an opportunity to grow the Jedi Order over the 30 years we hadn't seen him. If you aren't going to show us this 30 year gap, then why allow incredibly important character-180-events to take place during them?

[1:17:01] Luke earned his chance to create something new for the Jedi, something better and stronger and overcoming those who would prevent that level of growth.

[1:17:14] And before we can even engage with that idea, that he created something out of the destruction, we are told it's all dead anyway, only to be left in the dark until halfway through the second film in which we receive a sorry explanation as to why all of this has happened.

[1:17:28] Like I said, lots of reasonable assumptions about the world being made from the previous films are being immediately thrown out here, and they require a full trilogy of their own to explain. Ultimately, the good guys are massively crippled, in both the Jedi side of it and the Galactic government.

[1:17:42] We are not going to get substantive information on why these collectives failed so systemically, yet these new positions for each of the significant factions decide the stakes for the main characters It is important that we know where they stand now, but not how they got there.

[1:17:57] The motive behind writing this way will be made clear very soon. "With the support of the Republic, General Leia Organa leads a brave Resistance. She is desperate to find her brother Luke and gain his help in restoring peace and justice to the galaxy."

[1:18:11] or a position that would allow her to affect policy significantly, she is a combat general, Which... okay, there is so much to unpack.

[1:18:24] This is what we have to work with, so let's go from the beginning. We left the universe with the leading figures of the Empire all being destroyed. The fleet was crippled, and their fledgling superweapon was torn apart moments after first being operated.

[1:18:39] As a result, the audience could expect many things from a sequel movie. Perhaps the regime that was the Empire had been turn to dust, never to return. of never allowing an Empire-like entity to rise again.

[1:18:55] Maybe a galaxy-wide rush for power begins, all factions playing it "Old West" Nope. Regardless of all that, surely a new modern and powerful war-born Republic would be established,

[1:19:11] Right? These examples are far from what has happened. So it's safe to assume our heroes did establish a Republic, or at least helped to form one.

[1:19:24] And beyond it being formed, it would seem that it did nothing and it was worth very little. On top of that, Luke fled the galaxy and Leia is now looking for him with her resistance force, So if we move a little further, why is there a Resistance?

[1:19:39] Shouldn't it be a part of the Republic? You can look into third party information to find answers that attempt to repair the source material, A story should stand on its own,

[1:19:51] not require additional stories from a completely different medium in order to be coherent. It's a sad reality that writing will only get worse if we continue to use this It is very clear that a Resistance exists alongside a Republic,

[1:20:06] so that once the Republic is obliterated in the storyline, This creates the very same struggle that we saw in a certain other movie, So the factions being completely misplaced is a fundamental world-building flaw.

[1:20:23] Perhaps not irreparably breaking the narrative at hand, but in this case, it ain't good news. The movie does not explain why the Resistance exists outside of the established Republic. The movie does not connect what we knew of our classic characters with these new characters

[1:20:37] The movie does not explain the drastic increase in strength for the remnant of the Empire. The movie does not explain why the Republic is so inept, understaffed and lacking ambition.

[1:20:50] Each of these questions have an incredibly important effect on creating the stakes for the story, Interviewer: Many of us has been thinking about what happened after The Return of the Jedi

[1:21:02] for the past 32 years. Did all of you had those questions, and when you got to finally answer them, did it live up to, or surprise your expectations?

[1:21:17] Mauler: Ultimately, the movie relies on the action of inference. Writers actively causing fanbases to generate stories to tell each other through mystery. Why is it that a war-recovering modern Republic wouldn't, over the 30 years

[1:21:30] we haven't seen them, build a powerful galactically supported army ready for any threats, space or planet bound, crushing any sense of a potential Empire, If anything, you would expect them to overcompensate, rather than fizzle out.

[1:21:45] Kinda like in our own tragic history, certain countries censor media to prevent any proliferation of ideas Instead, the Republic is apparently resolved to shrink their own powers and allegiances.

[1:21:58] No more additional and loyal planets throughout the solar system, no more massive fleets, And this is happening despite the fact that the exact same superweapon, only planet-sized, They are reaching levels of strength previously unheard of!

[1:22:15] with an open policy of murdering opponents began to rise in any country of power? The biggest joke of it all is that the Republic supports Leia and her Resistance.

[1:22:28] And we see the Republic provided Resistance fleet, it is sent to destroy the most horrifying weapon in history later in the film, and it amounts to 12 X-Wings. could only spare Leia 12 fighters for a military organization meant to protect the galaxy?

[1:22:46] Ah, well, we can get to that latter... The Last Jedi confirms that she does, but there is no contact with them until the end of that film. Actually, who is with her in this film? Anyone we can confirm?

[1:23:03] Well, we have Admiral Ackbar, so where are the Mon Calamari ships? than when they were fighting a losing civil war at their wit's end, 30 years ago?

[1:23:16] The Last Jedi will confirm that they have no capital ships in the fleet, except for the Raddus. What about support ships? Well, they have them, but only as of The Last Jedi, despite taking place immediately after this film.

[1:23:31] - the most advanced and incredible ship in the Resistance fleet - not her in the planets orbit right now, at the Headquarters with the general? Is there an active war with the First Order?

[1:23:45] This section brings up so many questions about just what in the world has the Republic been doing? they are basically telling you that they will not be putting in the legwork. First of all, there's no war being run against them.

[1:24:02] The facts are that the First Order is massively feared already, yet the Republic is in power, but no one is currently in an open war. More importantly though, where are the First Orders resources coming from?

[1:24:16] This could be compared to the Clone Wars, where the Republic used their seemingly infinite army This is explained by the faction being droids and clones.

[1:24:28] Both are mass-produced, both are considered completely expendable. They are practically doing their job when they are defeated respectively. Sergeant: We're just clones sir, we're meant to be expendable.

[1:24:40] For the First Order however, as we will find out, the troopers are now taken from birth This may have started as much as 20 years ago, at least.

[1:24:52] of the Republic for decades, or they had massive reserves of Empire Loyalists actually took from a family 20 years ago.

[1:25:04] the figureheads of the Empire had been destroyed. What would make troopers remain a part of the regime, if not fear in the first place?

[1:25:16] sentient stormtroopers that actually believed in the dark side. Why is he in a position of power?

[1:25:28] The original showed us that the Empire had the galaxy under their thumb, free to conscript from any planet down to a low or strict force. and the Rebels were a plucky guerrilla faction, constructed of those who stood up and against

[1:25:45] this idea, and constructed plans to pierce many holes right through the heart of the Empire, Ultimately, it resulted in the freedom of the galaxy, so that means the forces of the Empire would not only be significantly splintered,

[1:26:00] or rule alongside the modern Republic, as they were simply taking orders, Either way, we need more information to account for what we knew On the bad team, we have strength and organization to be dealt with,

[1:26:16] On the good team, we have a handful of people with some ships completely unprepared, weak and on the run, despite expecting them to be stalwart, far-reaching, respected and powerful.

[1:26:29] This world is completely upside-down, and it is clearly an aid of recreating what we had But you can't simply force a restart, you have to put in the work to bring the system back down. Even Game of Thrones opens up with piece of the kingdoms in full force.

[1:26:44] The factions that won a victory during the equivalent of a Galactic Civil War They fear the uprising of their old enemies, and stagnation of their old systems is apparent,

[1:26:56] only to then degrade and destroy those very positions over the first two seasons, leading to an open war throughout the countryside with many factions involved. only to then skip to season 3 of Game of Thrones, it would be ridiculously jarring,

[1:27:11] We have skipped too much of what was important to understand how this has fallen apart, and proactive characters. Thus, to summarize these two opening paragraphs that connect episode VI and VII,

[1:27:25] we have: Luke, our hero is gone, the Jedi - the class of our hero and primary iconography The modern flourishing 30-year Republic is crippled and headless.

[1:27:38] The government-funded and supported resistance fighters prepared to knock out opposition at any moment have less in their fleet than any rebel organization we saw in the previous trilogy, even though they were a self-supported guerrilla force by comparison to a

[1:27:51] Finally, they have a completely hollow set of allies. Many are missing, and of the ones that are here, they are limp by comparison to their once heavy might. being provided massive amounts of money and order, with an army and fleet to boot.

[1:28:07] This, supported by a brand new set of darkside users that have come out of nowhere, and they don't seem to have trouble going about whatever business they deem necessary By comparison, in the prequels, we had a bloated government that was inefficient

[1:28:22] and drowning in red tape, and despite that, they actually cared when attacks were carried out across the universe in systems that they were meant to represent. Mauler: You deserved better, Mundi.

[1:28:41] Interviewer: ...if there was preparation, rehearsal between the two of you for those scenes, Daisy Ridley: Mark? (audience laughing)

[1:28:55] Mauler: Now, the obvious point is that the world has flipped back to the opening of a New Hope, It is a strong example of applying artificial limitations to create drama. while ignoring the narratives history, making it a hollow copy, and this issue persists in The Last Jedi.

[1:29:14] Lupita Nyong'o: You know, this film, we learn a lot more about the history of the universe, to see how those secrets unfold. Mauler: No, not quite. The writers had one goal when they came up withe the premise of this film:

[1:29:29] The problem is that if you do that, the good guys will be winning immediately. It has to be a war where the good guys are completely outmatched, they need to be the underdogs.

[1:29:43] If that is the case, then we can actually get scenes where our heroes are being courageous and sacrificial. so to get them in a weak position again, you would need a compelling set of events The trilogy could have been about the fall of the modern Republic,

[1:29:59] in positions of experience and power. These decisions could reflect their roles in the original films, they could deal with hubris, arrogance and vanity. A switch that was initially flipped very slowly over the course of three films,

[1:30:17] They aren't going to create a trilogy covering it like the prequels did, because who wants to see bad guys win in a Disney movie? Right? We will make the bad guys the powerful ones in the beginning, and we wil smash them by the end.

[1:30:30] And so, in order to achieve this, we have the artificial limitations on every aspect of our hero's resources, So, what could have been done?

[1:30:44] in ways that their strength cannot easily save them. Superman has his kryptonite, Iron Man suddenly has terrible security,

[1:30:57] This isn't binary of course, there are plenty of minor and major uses of nerfing or challenging your heroes across a whole scale. The focus is on the generation of drama,

[1:31:11] which is difficult when the good guys should theoretically win any battle. Should they magically poof an extremely powerful entity into existence, while breaking all of the heroes apart and sapping any strenght they previously had?

[1:31:24] No, that's extremely lazy and contradictive, but this is a tough situation to write for. How do you challenge your heroes when they have such an extremely potent position of power?

[1:31:41] This show is about a guy called Saitama, who is an invincible hero who can kill anything in just one punch, if he so pleases, causing any fight to end rather anticlimacticly,

[1:31:53] frustrating him to no end.

[1:32:07] Damn it! Mauler: The drama ends up revolving around Saitama having to defend the cities he's a part of, The show has him deal with training a potential protégé,

[1:32:23] who doesn't quite understand what you would call his lessons. while doing so at a cost-effective pace. Outside of that, he has to try and rise in the official hero ranks for the recognition of his abilities,

[1:32:40] This is all on top of character conflicts originating from Saitama's lack of social skills, that are indeed much weaker than Saitama, thrown in for good measure.

[1:32:53] All of these elements ultimately result in several heartfelt moments that can really catch you off guard, - No one has to tell me I have no chance of beating you. I already know that!

[1:33:09] It's not about winning or losing, it's about me taking you on right here, right now. Enough of your rambling. Time to finish you off.

[1:33:24] You're the cyclist for justice! Beat that weird monster, beat him! Mauler: Despite primarily acting as a comedy, it provides strong lessons for our protagonist, and for us.

[1:33:42] Having alternative restrictions to a powerful character can create endearing drama. Conflict doesn't always need to rely on an equally powerful entity that ends with a punch. but don't assume that I'm saying that it's always good to end a conflict without punching.

[1:33:58] Batman: Why did you say that name!? Mauler: And so, through the strength of its writing, One Punch Man is able to achieve the solution to the problem of having too much power in your protagonist, while maintaining dramatic tension.

[1:34:12] It takes time, effort and talent, but you can make a grounded heartfelt story push powerful heroes into a vulnerable state that isn't related to power levels waning. Now compare those writing ideas from One Punch Man to this "wonderful" set of opening two paragraphs.

[1:34:27] This minute of screen time avoids the responsibility of creating a narrative and instead opts to quickly drop the heroes in as much danger as possible for no other reason than:

[1:34:40] Mauler: ...which would normally be completely valid, except this time, the writers have interpreted the continuation of the show to mean performing the same show with younger actors

[1:34:52] It's as if it's an ongoing production in a theater of the same story the original was always available, playing just besides this new one.

[1:35:04] they want to convince us that this new one is a continuation of the story. As a result, they are forced to write these two simple paragraphs and hope no one thinks about it, The first six episodes of Star Wars adhere to jumping through time in a very specific way.

[1:35:22] There are events that take place in these gaps in time, but when we return, our characters are mostly unscathed and the factions of the world are relatively unaltered. The writer brings the audience back when the drama is reaching its high point,

[1:35:35] involving massive character and world-changing events to maintain continuity. This time jump though, it started with Luke looking over a life well earned, family and friends are safe and loved, with a thankful galaxy ready to flourish in freedom

[1:35:47] Mark: "Luke Skywalker has vanished." Luke doesn't want believe in the Jedi, the Jedi are almost extinct,

[1:35:59] Luke no longer cares for the relationships he's previously fought for, the Empire is in power Han Leia have broken up, Han is a smuggler once again, Leia has given up on her son and her lover, Lando is nowhere to be seen, and the Republic is pathetic.

[1:36:12] This is a definitive smash cut, with nothing to fill the gap. it sounds as though we've skipped a genuinely fascinating trilogy. Ultimately, they are forging drama by ignoring the established storyline

[1:36:25] In a situation like that, you need as much expository dialogue and flashbacks but the Force Awakens doesn't even try beyond a handful of lines and this embarrassing text scroll.

[1:36:40] and the Last Jedi in order to tell their own stories. because the world is massively important to the stakes of the story being told,

[1:36:53] and its just been flipped upside down for no other reason than creating drama. As if there were no other choice. Yes, you did just watch me talk about the opening seconds of a movie for 30 minutes.

[1:37:06] So, from this mess we now have our connection to the previous film, with the last paragraph of the title crawl. "Leia has sent her most daring pilot on a secret mission to Jakku,

[1:37:20] Much like everything else in the Force Awakens, this is fine at first glance, it also begins to fall apart. She's a part of the current galactic government, it is safe to travel, and reaching the Republic

[1:37:38] So why make it difficult and situate yourself on a very distant planet, From a meta-writing standpoint, the First Order can't just show up to interrogate That would result in an actual war, and the good guys would get their information immediately,

[1:37:56] But, if you do it on this planet, they can be an imposing force, even if it makes no sense. Let's refocus on this point: the title crawl would have us believe that Leia wants Luke in order to save the galaxy, and this is her one chance for that goal to be reached.

[1:38:10] Why not - if he refuses - send a fleet to meet him and protect him? Why does Leia send one man for something this important?

[1:38:23] Why would any General risk their greatest combat pilot on what is a spy mission? No intelligence officers to spare? No investigators or informers?

[1:38:35] At this point, we then realized that Poe is using an X-Wing, so if anyone wants to argue that Leia was attempting to remain inconspicuous, then why send the only ship that ties the pilot The reason I'm assuming this is espionage is that they had the audacity to send a single unit,

[1:38:53] galaxy saving information, and Poe is caught as a result. Now, these are not plot holes, they are reasonable questions that may have reasonable answers, Thus, our heroes are already in a large amount of trouble,

[1:39:09] The stakes will be affected for many viewers, since they may not believe and so their immersion takes yet another hit.

[1:39:21] Though, to finish up this section, let me acknowledge a portion of the audience "Well, you could ask any question about world-building you've put forth so far about every Star Wars movie!

[1:39:34] Very well. we have to accept the facts as given by the writers, even if they conflict with our universe.

[1:39:46] We would typically refer to this as 'internal consistency'. The fiction is only beholden to itself, not our world rules, but theirs. Otherwise, wizards, uruk-hai, aliens and mutants would be off-limits in terms of storytelling.

[1:40:00] Internal consistency is a fundamental of fictional writing, and many will ignore the concept to try and drive the point home that, even if one thing in the story exists in a way that What I mean by that, is that many people will end up screeching about space wizards,

[1:40:16] despite stakes and progression being entirely reliant on logic in the first place. And so, if a world tells us that up is down, then up is down.

[1:40:28] without questioning how everything came to be, because this is the beginning of the story, and the story is not about our planet. In reality, it is about a fictional world that may come close, but with key details changed.

[1:40:43] The Earth is scorched now? If they give us statistics and we accept that these are accurate, even if they are loosely based on real life,

[1:40:55] as long as they don't contradict themselves in the story it was established. No matter how awful the story is, this is the benefit of an opening crawl. Take all of the opportunity you get to tell the audience what your rules are, and what your setup is.

[1:41:10] It can be incredibly useful to set a completely alien world with a very simplistic set of statements. for the story to be understood and for the drama to maintain the stakes.

[1:41:22] But, it will indeed fall apart when you create a set of establishing rules The original Star Wars films had nothing but a blank canvas. Specific details weren't required and they still provided a strong context,

[1:41:36] but a sequel has the daunting job of creating something new within the rules To be clear, let's talk about world building a little bit. It's a world where machines have taken over due to the advancement of technology,

[1:41:49] As a last-ditch effort to maintain their reign, the machines sent one of their own back in time It's a neat idea, because it creates a neat story to tell.

[1:42:01] An efficient killer-robot-slasher film in a time where it would be impossible The established rule is simple: the machines were limited to sending one absolute unit back in time, and they chose to do it when the target was yet to be born.

[1:42:15] But then we got a second movie doing the same thing, which raises a question: So, were they limited to two, and not one, or many?

[1:42:27] And then the one robot? Why didn't they send a robot both times? Then Terminator 3 happened, and so three have been sent back, but this one could also infect old machines and turn them hostile,

[1:42:42] Then Terminator 4 and 5 happened, and the writing is a horror show. and a reboot is all that's left to have any sense of a coherent story to tell.

[1:42:54] My God, that is a guarantee. Star Wars isn't quite at that point, but the same thing is happening by attempting to tell the same story over and over again, but labeling these stories as sequels.

[1:43:06] and then you can build whatever kind of world you want around those rules. In this world, magic exists and you can learn about it to become more proficient. In this world, there is a myriad of brand-new species that all have pros and cons,

[1:43:21] and a Dark Lord who wants to rule them all in a medieval land, complete with magic and dragons. This world has so many hundreds of assassins, being that it is a common profession, that there is an open organization to house and service them.

[1:43:33] These are all kinds of different, ridiculous worlds compared to the reality we actually have, It maintains stability, as long as the rules don't contradict themselves, It only begins to fall apart in Terminator, and of course Star Wars,

[1:43:50] when your established rules and world are being overwritten for the sole reason of well, contradictive writing. The audience does not require detailed information about the worlds premise

[1:44:07] in a story beyond that which allows them to understand what's at stake. The audience does however, require detailed information about the world's premise if it appears to contradict the stakes of the story that now acts as its history.

[1:44:23] The former is what we were dealing with in 1977, and the latter is what we're dealing with in 2015. The criticisms aimed at The Force Awakens world building exist because of Episode IV. If Episode VII were the first episode, the world building would be far more forgivable,

[1:44:38] But even then, it's flawed by representing a universe while maintaining that no factions are concerned with the Galactic War, a war that will determine which faction becomes the reigning government.

[1:44:50] is already sprouting issues, and we have barely begun. There are many out there who don't see any issue with contradictive rules, This argument is especially propagated when it comes to children's content.

[1:45:07] to try and bridge this gap between the two sides of this argument? He wants to fight criminals, and his power is to be able to throw rocks at people,

[1:45:19] In this universe, it is established that you may only master a single form of matter, Billy defeats Scissorman at the end of the story by throwing rocks at him.

[1:45:31] Despite that, rules have been set, just like every other story when it comes to progression. And thus, the audience knows the difference between safety and danger, and what can be lost or gained. Obviously, your standard story will come with a lot more dressing and complexity.

[1:45:46] Though, we didn't need any more information than what I just gave you for the story to have its stakes. In Story 2, Billy fights Rockman, and thus throwing rocks does nothing. But before being smashed to pieces, Billy summons rock acid to throw, and thus melts Rockman.

[1:46:00] The first story is just the result of an ability we were made aware of from the get-go, but the second is a denial of information provided by the first story, that the creator wanted in the second film,

[1:46:14] The writers have put themselves into an unsolvable situation, until they summon a tool that allows them to escape it, otherwise known as Deus ex machina.

[1:46:26] So, instead of working within the limits they agreed to tell a story within, they copped out. They use not only an established rule, but a contradictive rule, and it saves the day. when all known information points to them being absolutely safe.

[1:46:42] because the victory of the good guys is far more important for children to feel happy about, Children are naive by nature, and so reality isn't always a factor in how they consume media.

[1:46:55] I am NOT saying that you need to be a child to enjoy The Last Jedi, but it does ignore the reality of its own universe in very similar ways to typical children's writing. But the problem here is that that would be an example of BAD children's writing,

[1:47:08] because to say that children's writing doesn't require criticism is antithetical to the many A children's story simply means it will lack overt violence, drug use, sexual activity,

[1:47:20] and it will often lack a deep and emotional theme, but that's not a guarantee. Many children's stories have a deep theme for adults to pick up, and for children to accept subconsciously. In many ways, children's writing requires more criticism than adult writing, because it's meant

[1:47:33] These are children we're talking about. They are like sponges to the stories they consume. I think it makes much more sense that we take a lot more care with children's content.

[1:47:45] Even though there are films designed for a much more mature audience, with the kind of writing quality that would be far more suitable for a child's perception of reality. But rather than the contradictive writing being a result of creating a positive environment for children

[1:48:00] we are dealing with adult creators that may lack a talent for the craft, may lack respect for the craft, may not care for the previous stories compared to their own vision, Again, that's an awful idea, because everyone makes mistakes, whether or not they're aware of it.

[1:48:17] So putting in more time for a feature-lenght multi-milion dollar project will likely benefit the experience. And the excuse for having inconsistencies if favor of it being for children is ultimately disrespectful I would have found it insulting if someone told me I should have liked

[1:48:33] And to quote a friend: "Why not remain consistent?" So, what are we to do when writing additional stories for new worlds? Well, when it comes to perceived contradictions, due to returning over a large period of time,

[1:48:49] Subtle, yet extensive, so your audience can follow along, otherwise the contradiction is no longer simply perceived. that saved the day in the moment for the benefit of an emotional payoff.

[1:49:03] You would have needed to set it up earlier on, or you betray the intelligence of your audience. respecting the information that comes before. The first being that you use what you have in your history to line up a reasonable future,

[1:49:16] The second being that you set up the elements that facilitate For the latter point, if you are writing your story in one draft, without returning for a second draft.

[1:49:31] if you come up with a different payoffs at the end. A good rule of thumb would be that what's established is what you can use. as if to say "I've established it, therefore can use it a few seconds later".

[1:49:47] When you structure the writing, you end up with something called "setup" and "payoff". They told us it existed from the beginning. Shaun: 'cos the pub's called the Winchester.

[1:50:02] Shaun: Because it's got big heavy doors, and dead bolts. You've been to a lock in. David: I would think that's deactivated. Dianne: Surely. Shauny!

[1:50:22] Why didn't you just shoot him man? Shaun: For the last time, it- Q will introduce them well ahead of time.

[1:50:36] Q: Now, watch closely please 007. Q: Insert it in... Oldm'n: Oh, pull the tag. Q: You said-

[1:51:09] Mauler: Frodo was provided his mithril vest much earlier than when it became useful. Mithril. As light as a feather, and as hard as dragon's scale.

[1:51:26] Gandalf: I think there's more to this Hobbit than meets the eye. whatever world you want, but as soon as you have it written down,

[1:51:41] And so you work withing what you have from the start. And you shouldn't look at this as a negative thing. Rules promote creativity in writing. then he's going to have to use the sewers to travel by day.

[1:51:57] "Well... now it works differently, idk." But, is it possible to make a new story that doesn't step on any source material writing? Seriously, you can make great additional stories that don't ruin the original stories, despite adding to them.

[1:52:14] No, Shrek and Shrek two are genuinely great animated films, I'm not even memeing. The Star Wars sequel trilogy however, is not only guilty of stretching things that have been put in place, they have now outright clunkily morphed the state of the world to whatever allows them

[1:52:31] to any of the previous six episodes to this degree. In the case of the Force Awakens, the writers wanted to have a civil war once again, They want the bad guys to be powerfull, despite them being crippled and hunted.

[1:52:45] They want the heroes ready to make some incredibly lucky and skillful moves to save the day, And finally, they will likely want us celebrating the victory of the good guys by the third film

[1:52:57] despite us already having earned that very position over 30 years ago. Hopefully, this extensive section offers some explanation as to why so many viewers were of the opening three paragraphs alone.

[1:53:13] The opening crawl is quite a nightmare for many people, and it serves to completely unweave All the while insulting the intelligence of the viewer, in an attempt to retell what was a very profitable story long ago.

[1:53:30] Which has now ironically damaged that very story itself. - Like, from the opening crawltext, which by the way, this crawl text, Mauler: No.

[1:53:44] and perhaps that will be worth the damage. So how about we dive right in?

[1:54:04] Fringy: The original Star Wars trrilogy tells an entertaining, cohesive and well-rounded story. but it didn't really need to be. While the world building and artistic direction was excellent, the central characters, especially Luke,

[1:54:23] A New Hope, Empire and Return of the Jedi are some of the most culturally significant films ever made, I mean, even without the groundbreaking visual effects, or amazing score,

[1:54:37] the original Star Wars films are good films, with likable characters and satisfying narrative arcs. The Force Awakens when I first saw it in theaters, but it only took a few monts and subsequent Though The Force Awakens does have its fair share of plot contrivances, and weak character development,

[1:54:54] It is pretty average though, and almost painfully unambitious. I don't think anybody could have foreseen how far Star Wars would fall in just three years.

[1:55:06] a new film in the Star Wars franchise is no longer guaranteed to break even. Never has Star Wars as a series been in such a tumultuous position, despite the insistence of many that there is nothing wrong.

[1:55:21] The only thing that The Last Jedi has successfully done is alienate possibly half of all Star Wars fans, and Rian Johnson's attitude toward said fans in the interim has been absolutely embarrassing. The defense of this film by the people involved in this production has been beyond dishonest,

[1:55:36] and their refusal to acknowledge any of the valid criticism being directed towards this terrible film is serving to further drive a wedge between the studio and the fans. A lot of people are angry, and when they're being insulted and slandered for simply

[1:55:49] disliking a deeply flawed film, it's no suprise that they've stopped showing up to the cinema. I'm not sure the ship can be righted, but you know, anything's possible. That said, the reputation of Star Wars as a franchise isn't going to improve if they intend to stay the course.

[1:56:12] Interviewer: Mark, you maybe up for that. Maybe? Maybe up for that? No? (audience laughter)

[1:56:25] Mauler: We open on the daunting image of a Star Destroyer peering over the planet Jakku, giving a strong visual reference to the original Star Wars, It's eclipsing our current perception of the galaxy.

[1:56:40] It also confirms that Star Destroyers are still utilized as a ship for the enemy faction, We are then given a smash cut right into the squad of stormtroopers This is filmed with several quick cuts, diminished lighting and a non stable frame to create tension.

[1:56:57] It's a strong opening set of visuals, because in 2015 we were starved starved of Hollywood-level mainline Star Wars content, and immediately seeing something as recognizable as a Star Destroyer or stormtroopers with small changes

[1:57:12] to their designs can reassure fans of the content they're about to consume is something familiar, However, this is more of a writing analysis, and thus I have to ask: We know it was done to encourage that sense of tension, as the troopers are partially revealed,

[1:57:28] You could have had a low red light instead. It certainly would have added to the intimidation factor, Instead, we are to assume that a faction as powerful, organized and meticulous as the First Order

[1:57:41] It's clearly a style choice, but this is a good place for me to take another tangent. who are saying something very specific. "Mauler complains that the lights flicker, and that is why The Force Awakens is an objectively bad film.

[1:57:58] He is nitpicking, meaning all of his arguments are now worthless." Okay, first of all, people seem to be obsessed with the idea that you can grab any one point I make, and sell it as the entire point of my videos despite also complaining that I talk too long

[1:58:11] The other part that's confusing is that you are telling me how much I value these things. The fact that I mention them does not mean that I think that they are detrimental to the film.

[1:58:24] Stop ascribing my value to a point that I don't describe my value to in a video. The truth is, I tackle all mechanical writing issues as I find them, big and small.

[1:58:37] How detrimental the issue is usually correlates with the time I spend on it, unless I make it abundantly clear to help explain why it is impactful or not. It was mentioned, I had mentioned an alternative, it's already over.

[1:58:50] that if left unanswered doesn't affect the plot or the characters whatsoever. and what was sacrificed to create it, meaning that in the future we could correct it, as content creators.

[1:59:05] it can begin the process that starts to rot the quality of writing in most projects. I don't structure my videos by covering only the small issues, and then only the large, fundamental issues.

[1:59:17] It shouldn't be too hard to tell that flickering lights are a nano issue, and character assassination is not. And besides all that, the phrase "nitpicker" is one of the most overused criticisms of critics in internet culture.

[1:59:31] but they refrain from qualifying it to make it sound just a little bit stronger. "I think the thing you are talking about isn't as important as you make it sound",

[1:59:44] a critics flaws than dropping them into this vat that applies to basically anything, And then on top of all of that, do you really want to ignore nits?

[1:59:57] You accept that there are issues by making this criticism, but you've decided that Do you understand that I can say you are nitpicking my analysis? Do you understand that in the land of subjectivity, one man's nitpick

[2:00:10] And so, simply stating it doesn't mean anything. When you spot a car in the background of Lord of the Rings, it's almost nothing But it is valid, and it is something to learn from in future as a movie mistake.

[2:00:25] Many people will find it interesting to note or to think about if they weren't aware to begin with. A clear benefit is to identify something small in terms of a writing flaw, So, the highlight of a nitpick is harmless to me.

[2:00:37] It's when you use a nitpick to justify the entire project lacking quality that I take issue, But bringing up blatant rules being broken in aid of moving your drama forward is not a nitpick whatsoever.

[2:00:50] You would have to qualify it if you wish to have a meaningful discussion, I mean, they do exist, it's just like... it's like 10% at most? Though it needs to be reaffirmed that the clear benefit of identifying a small issue and moving on,

[2:01:05] or at least spot them in the future. Nobody wants to put even the smallest of scratches on their phone or their car. even though they really don't matter in terms of how well your car will drive.

[2:01:18] Similarly to how a story will function just fine with a few nitpicks. The fascinating part to me is that the nitpick crowd will stay rather silent I said the Doctor Strange maintaining his surgery scars is a strong piece of continuity,

[2:01:35] but let's be honest, it's a minor point that most won't see, and carries very little benefit to the script at all. But nobody in the comment section talked about me delving too hard into the tiniest of details to try and make the film look good.

[2:01:50] I guess it's a... "positive nitpick", Either way, the point of showing both sides of the coin is to add things to think about as a whole. for the duration, and you will have things to think about.

[2:02:07] At the end of the day, it's only going to be detrimental to you. The media, and my assessment of it are not created for the sole purpose of being ignored. And for those who like to watch my videos to go to sleep, don't worry,

[2:02:21] Sleep tight. But to add a final olive branch to this discussion that arguably started because of a flickering light, There are flickering lights in the escape vessel in the finale of Alien.

[2:02:36] It is what could be argued as a kind of safety light, or a precautionary light, It creates this extremely unnerving visual of the creature. and that makes us unable to clearly understand it,

[2:02:50] making it more unpredictable and mysterious, which adds to the fear factor. In the case of The Force Awakens, it's flashing recognizable imagery I have the same assessment of both examples.

[2:03:02] It is something you'd have to consider on set, and they chose it even when it made no sense. I think it's incredible, and this little moment is something that you can discuss. Perhaps by highlighting it, someone will have a fair reason in the comment section

[2:03:15] section for why it was standard in both The Force Awakens dropship and the escape vessel. an hour ago - a simple lack of information. And besides, it isn't necessarily a contradiction, as this could be simply how the lights work

[2:03:29] in their universe, but it can be interesting from a filmaking standpoint nonetheless. But I happen to have a friend who's an ex paratrooper, and it made no sense to him So I'm opening the discussion about it briefly.

[2:03:42] for the brain to chew on while we approach larger subjects. Hopefully that makes more sense, but if it doesn't, this really isn't the channel for you, to understand "X", "Y" and "Z".

[2:03:57] I seriously doubt you got to this point in the video, so, umm... The setup here is that Poe, the daring pilot, has come come to visit Lor San Tekka, Tekka has an important lead to finding Luke Skywalker, and so Poe is going to collect it.

[2:04:13] as the film works quite hard to mystify the origin of the map and its holder, Tekka says that he wants Poe to take the map, and it will begin to "make things right".

[2:04:27] and now this trilogy will rectify them. Which, if true, is a very interesting take on a statement, especially with the Star Wars climate in 2015. But considering where we're at now, assuming that's the point of the line, it's just embarrassing.

[2:04:42] Though it is confirmation that Tekka has a personal stake in this map reaching Leia. Poe then replies that the general - being Leia - will appreciate having it, and Tekka says: Mauler: Implying he has known her since the Galactic Civil War, when she was Princess Leia,

[2:04:59] This raising the question again of: why not come directly to Leia if you've known her for so long so well, especially if you're personally invested in this mission? After BB-8 detects the incoming troopers and warns Poe to escape, Tekka warns Poe as well,

[2:05:15] On top of this, Poe takes a moment to look at the enemies through his binoculars First of all, had you brought a ship to pick up Tekka with instead of simply meeting him,

[2:05:27] Secondly, if you had a ship with space for two, rather than a one-seater X-Wing, you and he could have escaped immediately as a safety net, if this was to happen. Thirdly, you CAN escape immediately, and yet you dawdle, looking through your binoculars

[2:05:41] against a 100 man raiding party with no compunction about brutal murder. Where in the world is Tekka going to hide, and why are you wasting so much time? Another interesting element to explore is that the arrival of Kylo is treated as a bad bit of luck.

[2:05:57] Why does he know this is happening, and how did he arrive at exactly the right time We've already begun copying Star Wars, so we may as well compare. Vader: Don't act so surprised, your highness. You weren't on any mercy mission this time.

[2:06:13] Several transmissions were beamed to this ship by Rebel spies. Mauler: This dialogue is referencing the opening crawl. Spies stole the data, and the Empire followed the transmission of those plans to this ship.

[2:06:27] We know you've found it. Mauler: Okay? It was findable, apparently. which alerted the bad guys too.

[2:06:40] This provides us an inconvenience. The original scene was cause and effect. But a bit of bad luck or good luck is fine, any story has a bit of both. Though additionally, I don't know if it's tied to luck or not,

[2:06:55] but why is it that the Star Destroyer got so much time to approach the planet before anyone detected it? I suppose it's just a little bit hard to believe, considering the technolohy of the universe, allowing Poe to be caught, pushing the plot right along.

[2:07:09] Overall, it's pretty simple, all of these little things simultaneously go wrong, and the good guys end up finding Luke in just under 10 minutes. But, let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.

[2:07:23] resulting in their death or capture. Two stormtroopers then break off, and shoot Poe's X-Wing, disabling it immediately. After that, the troopers are dispatched and no other troopers seem to notice or care.

[2:07:37] This is interesting, because how isn't an X-Wing in the middle of a small village that might have the most important data to the First Order not the focus for this assault? It should be a high priority, since it's directly associated with the Resistance

[2:07:49] as it's the only thing that they can see has the the potential to escape the area. nobody seems to give Poe and his craft any attention until the plot demands it.

[2:08:02] Either way, these two troopers were more than enough to permanently ground the X-Wing. Poe then views the damage and doesn't bother with a potential repair from BB-8, and because nobody seems to care about their existence as of right now.

[2:08:17] Either way, Poe puts the map inside BB-8 and tells the droid to get as far away from this area as possible, only to turn and begin shooting distant troopers that are still unaware of his existence. Mauler: We will remember that line.

[2:08:32] This is a horribly bad idea. spilling into this extremely weak village. You cannot win, and you have the knowledge that

[2:08:46] both the Resistance and the First Order apparently need to win their war, therefore you are putting the galaxy in jeopardy to score a couple of potshots. Run like BB-8, but in any other direction, run to a town or hide somewhere.

[2:09:01] The only thing that can happen here is capture, to ultimately be tortured to death for information. It makes no sense to stay, since that is the worst possible outcome with the information you have. Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to why?

[2:09:14] Well, Poe needs to be captured in order for the First Order to actually have a plot to follow. It is interesting that we get to see Poe nail a handful of kills, It's only after he gets very emotional and tries to kill Kylo himself that he's actually caught,

[2:09:31] had he done the normal person thing and tried to escape, because Tekka could have delayed Kylo. Other than that, I do actually like the detail a lot that Poe,

[2:09:43] Finn's future friend, is the one that killed Finn's fellow soldier in this scene. The event that put Finn in a position where he wanted to rescue Poe and betray the First Order There is certainly something to approach there in terms of conflict,

[2:09:58] perhaps Finn would no longer see Poe as a hero, or even a friend, Perhaps by learning that Poe killed Finn's friend, Finn could learn something about the morality of war. In a nuanced way, both sides commit similar misdeeds in favour of their ideology,

[2:10:15] So, who do you really wanna serve? Imagine that from there, Finn became a bounty hunter, or a lone gunman, Everything about that potential is dropped.

[2:10:29] The film doesn't explore it, which is a shame, but it actually matches a pattern. It's a setup without a payoff, which could be the subtitle for this film, In fact, we can cover it a little bit here.

[2:10:41] Finn the stormtrooper begins to lose his mind because of the violence and death he is having to face, Now, the first question that sets off the rest of the questions here is:

[2:10:55] Mauler: But wait, ok hang on, and as for the original trilogy troopers, we weren't given any reason to assume they would defect. The theory would go that the Empire controlled most of the galaxy's resources,

[2:11:10] They never make it absolutely clear on how, At least as long as the main figure heads are in charge. because they were strong symbols of intimidation.

[2:11:27] Mauler: But now it's been made clear that the troopers are conditioned, If that happens, it prompts reconditioning, meaning that they can now defect as a rule.

[2:11:39] So to have a trooper do this in such a dramatic manner really does raise a lot of questions. If yes, then what in the world made him so special? Of course, there's nothing to answer that, so let's go with the other assumption.

[2:11:51] because Hux asks about Finn's previous instances on nonconformity, once Finn attempts to escape with Poe, meaning that there is a protocol to monitor nonconformity, and that wouldn't exist if nonconformity wasn't expected.

[2:12:06] where are those troopers, and have they ever revealed I mean, we already know that Finn has worked on it "extensively",

[2:12:18] Have the defects never been able to reveal that the First Order are even a thing? Have they never revealed what they're planning to the Republic, or anyone for that matter? If they are aware the defects exist, then you would need extremely

[2:12:33] It should not be this easy. They've introduced the undoubtedly brilliant idea of troopers having their own agency, because this is a sudden new rule.

[2:12:48] then how does Finn manage to slip their presumed monitoring and capturing systems, despite having a significant mental breakdown in front of the other troopers, Kylo Ren, Only to then kidnap their greatest prisoner moments later.

[2:13:03] and hope that they do? Finn's change of heart tells us that stormtroopers are now human in nature. They are not radicalized or conditioned effectively, they can feel for others, as well as themselves.

[2:13:22] give your grunt-like foot soldiers and galactic warfare some depth. From here, we could have scenes reminiscent of many fantasy or science fiction war stories. perhaps even sharing their past and love for the long gone Empire.

[2:13:39] Since, as a audience, we now want to know why they would stay, if they can think freely. This is also supported by captain Phasma, in that she chooses to lower the shields in exchange for her life. The film established that they are not complete drones anymore, they are people.

[2:13:53] The other films didn't explore it because the benefit of having grunts is that you can show death and battle progression, without the audience feeling conflicted on the damage being dealt. Stormtroopers really weren't considered people as opposed to units, but they are now.

[2:14:09] is the difficult idea of trying to find allies in the men who are also captives. These are men he respects and cares for, so this entire scenario is going to have massive stress on him. groundwork that will be abolished immediately.

[2:14:26] Both the Force Awakens and The Last Jedi quickly forget all of the progression From here on, they will be nothing more than drones again, except for Finn, of course.

[2:14:38] Nobody would know that Finn was a stormtrooper from the moment he drops his gear, since that history is never given additional detail, despite being potentially fascinating,

[2:14:50] to provide a different view to what the audience sees is a reprehensible force. We want there to be a stormtrooper who mutinies from the First Order and we want him to become a hero in the story,

[2:15:05] complete with an extremely helpful and friendly disposition throughout his interactions. but you also want the stormtroopers as a whole to remain docile, cold and faceless, as they are torn down in scores to the satisfaction of the audience.

[2:15:19] The audience is left with a contradiction, and the solution would have been to Perhaps his conditioning never took place, This could have been accounted for while explaining the worlds progression,

[2:15:35] As the film progresses, Finn could have shared that he only stayed with the First Order out of fear, That could work as an arc for his character overcoming cowardice.

[2:15:47] Though, there are far more writing issues surrounding Finn, and we will tackle them as they crop up later. For now, this is simply a large change for the world that isn't accounted for when you approach it with any thought.

[2:15:59] Hux: My men are exceptionally trained, programmed from birth. Mauler: Only they certainly aren't exceptionally trained, and that programming doesn't take sometimes. It's also fair to mention that this scene seems to evoke the very influential scene

[2:16:13] Not to say that this scene isn't directed well, just that many in the audience will be confused as to the situation here, when giving it some thought. Stormtroopers are people when need them to be, also they are not.

[2:16:27] of Vader's entrance during the original Star Wars: all black, shrouded in smoke, accompanied by his subservient stormtroopers. This scene and the Star Destroyer opening can be seen as respectful references, harmelss if not welcomed.

[2:16:43] and what decides whether it is a respectful reference, or something far more frustrating and complicated, is something we can cover as we progress. Tekka: Something far worse has happened to you.

[2:16:59] What that history is, we never get to learn about, Then again, Kylo's character history is a whole other topic. We know you found it.

[2:17:15] Mauler: There you have it. The First Order simply know about Tekka and the map, Regardless, Kylo is blatant in what he wants, demanding the map from Tekka,

[2:17:27] Tekka ignores his question, making a comment about how Kylo has not risen from the dark side. because light and dark is a staple of the Star Wars universe.

[2:17:40] and Tekka basically says "bring it on". Tekka: You may try, but you cannot deny the truth that is your family.

[2:17:55] This man has very important information, and he is refusing to share it at face value, use your force torture technique on him, here and now.

[2:18:08] you know he's not going to put much of a fight. He knows where the map is. Kylo even comments on that himself. to secure their dominance over the galaxy.

[2:18:21] but let's ignore that for the sake of assessing the film's own consistency. It will allow them to kill the apparent last Jedi, and they are hell-bent on doing that,

[2:18:34] Yet, Kylo kills the guy who has the definitive knowledge on its location. A common defense for this would be that Kylo is unhinged as a character,

[2:18:46] and a remark that he is not quite on the dark side was enough to push him But first of all, Kylo is calm, cool and collected. Kylo: You were so right.

[2:18:59] Mauler: Secondly, if he was enraged, why wouldn't he torture Tekka? Not only would Tekka live for a while longer, allowing Kylo the satisfaction of proving but he could get the information he knows Tekka has.

[2:19:12] Kylo is obsessed with reaching Luke Skywalker more so than any other goal. He wants revenge on the master that betrayed and failed him,

[2:19:26] which means the safety of Lor San Tekka should be paramount to success right now, This is just ridiculous to think about. The film would be over if either Kylo tortured Tekka right there, or if Poe would just ran off.

[2:19:39] Remember how Kylo can extract the memories of looking at a map from people's minds, He doesn't even try that here, it's almost like they invented that as an ability later,

[2:19:52] when he captures Rey to explain why he decided to leave the planet without BB-8, Despite all of that, however, lucky for Kylo, the one who has the only remaining lead

[2:20:04] decided to stay for no reason and openly attacks him the moment he kills Tekka. in terms of the script is that it helps to solidify Kylo as an antagonist to the audience.

[2:20:16] He happily murders this innocent, defenseless old man who apparently knew him well. But this process, this method is lifted one-for-one from Star Wars, only in the Force Awakens, it doesn't make sense narratively, whether compared or not.

[2:20:32] with this. But this made sense, as Vader simply wanted to find the Death Star plans aboard a singular vessel. Vader doesn't waste time, he knows the plans are on ship,

[2:20:49] they can't be anywhere else, so he orders the ship to be torn apart until the plans are found. Kylo on the other hand, has the opportunity to get the map location directly from Tekka, He will instead just kill him immediately for the impact, and I guess decide to search the area.

[2:21:08] But for the sake of clarification, the current area to search is a planet, meaning he is now in need of another lead, or he will have to search the entire village, In conclusion, it looks like we have an attempt to gain the same gravitas for Kylo here

[2:21:24] 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 This is an attempt to create emotional resonance without maintaining the intellectual consistency

[2:21:40] and there is a selection of people in this world who think intellectual consistency doesn't matter the idea that you should be concerned with being emotional,

[2:21:52] Just Write: I'm just saying like, you should be more concerned with creating art that is emotionally resonant, than something that is like, intellectually satisfying. Mauler: This is a clip from a debate that was held between myself, Wolf and Just Write

[2:22:08] There is a link to the full video in the description. but none were more troubling than the one I just played. Just Write: I'm just saying like, you should be more concerned with creating art that is

[2:22:21] emotionally resonant, than something that is like, intellectually satisfying. Mauler: This was covered earlier quite briefly in relation to Patrick Williams, and intellectual consistency are counterbalances to each other when telling a story,

[2:22:36] 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 Seeing a series of events play out in a realistic manner yields more immersion for them,

[2:22:53] The second issue is that it blurs subjectivity and objectivity, This is an attempt to make objectivity appear as a subjective viewpoint,

[2:23:07] 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.

[2:23:21] It's not hard to distinguish emotional arguments and objective ones. Interviewer: Now here's an interesting one: what's your personal rank of the six Star Wars movies? Oscar Isaac: I mean, I just have to go with emotion on it. For me, number one is Return of the Jedi,

[2:23:38] then the Empire Strikes Back, Star Wars... and then III, II, I. Interviewer: Is that because you grew up with it? Oscar: I recognize that Empire Strikes Back is a better film, but for me,

[2:23:53] I can't, I can't divorce my emotional response to Return of the Jedi - even the Ewoks, everything about it is, you know, I have a very personal connection to the memories that it elicits. Empire is the superior film in craft, but Jedi has some incredible emotional payoffs,

[2:24:10] and many saw it as their first film, so it holds a special position in their hearts. 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,

[2:24:25] Thirdly, the statement ignores the cognitive dissonance that occurs when you view content as flawless personally, and flawed objectively. Instead, it's avoided.

[2:24:38] 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.

[2:24:52] Like, if my Hobbit videos actually convinced people to dislike those films, then like, that sucks. The truth is not something to value, unless it makes you feel good.

[2:25:09] This is the same logic that we use with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, We should not be using this as adults for whether a story makes sense.

[2:25:21] HelloGreedo: I cannot think of a bigger waste of time than debating art. Mauler: If art is meant to teach us about life itself, while allowing us to escape,

[2:25:33] then the more it can maintain consistency that we recognize, the stronger immersion can become, because our world is very much a consistent one when it come to cause and effect. I mean, how about we check out Just Write in one of his videos about Game of Thrones?

[2:25:46] But as he talks, I'm going to change the visuals to apply his own principles on the subject to something else. Just Write: The pressures of creating a serialized story on a schedule almost invariably Logic is usually the first victim, and convenience becomes commonplace

[2:26:02] As you take a story on and on, it becomes more difficult to sit to create can result in stories that ignore logic and make strong use of convenience.

[2:26:14] and they are eroding the empathy we had for these characters. Mauler: Just Write, seen here explaining that logical errors and conveniences are ruining Just Write: And yet, we go on watching out of some sense of obligation,

[2:26:30] blinding ourselves to the faults along the way, There has to be some more meaning left, right? Hbomberguy is a firm believer in the subjective nature of art,

[2:26:45] and simultaneously refer to an error as a mistake, while maintaining it is not objective. Patrick Williams said there is no reason a company would pay for reviews,

[2:26:57] He also said that no plot holes actually matter, only to explain that there are certain plot contrivances that do. yet he will engage in it regularly both on his channel and his Twitter feed.

[2:27:13] Quinton Reviews will tell you there is nothing in this world that is objectively bad only to then call out bad sound design, awful dialogue and low-quality filmmaking Just Write will create a video highlighting writing issues and their effect on an audience,

[2:27:29] only to then recognize those same issues in other media and claim the opposite effect on the audience. Mauler: So, why didn't they use hyperdrive, all the Star Destroyers in the fleet? Mauler: Because, you're gonna tell me they didn't have the fuel?

[2:27:44] Mauler: I don't know what it means when these content creators end up providing a counter Oftentimes the video that the principle is stated will provide the contradiction, or actively ignore to protect the media they love.

[2:28:00] "Hypocrisy is a noxious weed, it should be torn out." Though, to bring it back down, Just Write is very capable of assessing media very effectively. What is being highlighted here is an emotional bias preventing an assessment

[2:28:15] All of the content creators I have given criticism to in this very video have that issue in select moments, Working to draw the line and let people know when you are speaking from your own

[2:28:27] 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, Growth will be stunted and media will continue to crumble

[2:28:42] as every IP falls prey to fast, single-draft scripts. 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:

[2:28:57] Leslie: No, that's your opinion, it's the definition of an opinion. Mauler: I genuinely believe many content creators can do this by mistake,

[2:29:09] that do this deliberately to try and turn their audience into a weapon That's a pretty strong claim to attach Quinton Reviews' face to, isn't it?

[2:29:21] It's called Every Frame a Pause, or EFAP. There will be a link in the description and I recommend checking out each of the episodes

[2:29:34] for a little bit of fun, but if you're confused, perhaps episode 10 will answer the question The point is: if you're not accurate and not clear, you can start dealing damage in many ways, And when it comes to art, we can discover the moving parts

[2:29:50] This applies to the very art that creators like myself and Just Write make, in other people's work is simply naive.

[2:30:03] When telling a story, a human reaction starts at what you saw and heard put together. 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.

[2:30:19] 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.

[2:30:32] It can leave us wondering why we thought of it so differently before. Or, you can scramble for any alternative to reconcile the writing flaw, as seen here: So why didn't you do it when he held her at gunpoint and threatened the lives of the entire ship?"

[2:30:48] doesn't do it at that point. That's the breaking point in which you're gonna sacrifice the entirety of the Resistance, just to prove a point about Poe's recklessness? Are you kidding me?

[2:31:00] Just Write: Right, maybe she's, I don't know, like... Because... for me, like none of that stuff shows up in a first viewing. How in the world are you meant to feel about Leia performing this act,

[2:31:16] when it wasn't set up, it creates evidence for her death outside of the danger of space, and it contradicts our universal rules, along with the rules in the Star Wars saga. How, I ask you. How!?

[2:31:29] 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, The interesting thing about this is that your subjective viewpoint

[2:31:45] 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.

[2:32:01] "You will immediately fry to a crisp by the unadulterated solar radiation if you get sucked out of the airlock." In the shade in space, it's like minus 250 degrees, but the part of you that's in the Sun,

[2:32:16] so it's like lying on a red-hot stove with a piece of dry ice on your back, and your lungs are gonna be sucked flat instantaneously. Your blood is gonna boil, like opening a can of pop, where suddenly all the little bubbles come out,

[2:32:31] You are going to freeze, boil, burn, get the bends, and no longer be able to breathe. Mauler: This is why facts, reason, logic and objective values are important

[2:32:43] You get to see whether you discern a reaction from the events taking place, From there, you get to explore that bias, and thus you get to explore yourself,

[2:32:57] but art can also always be deconstructed on a technical level, George Lucas: You don't invent technology and then figure out what to do with it. You come up with an artistic problem, and then you have to invent the technology

[2:33:10] in order to accomplish it, so it's the opposite of what most people think it is, An art on all levels is just technology. Mauler: To ignore the technical backbone of arts from the incredibly complex process of CGI,

[2:33:26] To preserve that special view of art, that it is something beautiful, mystical and it cannot be boxed, hard reality we all face, when in reality it's both.

[2:33:43] Denial of this fact lets people run rampant with the idea that no comment is inaccurate or ill-advised. People will then begin to attach connections where there really aren't any. Adam Driver: The world that creates is so, um, a lot of things are very unanswered,

[2:33:56] and that kind of makes it more personal. 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,

[2:34:11] Subjective assessments will always pop up in my videos, rather than something I can prove mechanically. something like the Last Jedi could be a masterpiece, or it could be nothing.

[2:34:27] Everyone is different, and that is why objectivity is a valuable baseline to be able to compare. Iterviewer: With every movie we walk away learning something, and in this particular one, what is it that we will be walking away learning?

[2:34:45] Adam Driver: Again, I think that, sorry... again I think that's a personal kind of thing. For probably some, it will be nothing. For others- (interrupted by forced fake laughing)

[2:35:00] (still laughing...) Some people really don't respond to content in one way or the other, and what does that mean? Perhaps it is based on trauma in your life, or lessons that you've come to learn, or a lack of both,

[2:35:17] They can simply admit that the facts don't affect them in one way or the other, Rian Johnson: I feel like I need to rewrite the opening sequence, and I freaked out because I'm like 'this doesn't track',

[2:35:33] you can't follow what's happening, you can't follow what the big stakes are. Mauler: And you see, that's fine, it's only human that you can create but that doesn't mean that we should sugarcoat it.

[2:35:48] The sad fact is that the social influencers, like the many I have covered in this video, believe that objectivity takes away validity from subjective perspectives of art, Not to say I am certain of their perspectives,

[2:36:04] but it is what I have come to understand from several of them, in my opinion. Just Write: No, but you've reduced the amount of enjoyment in the world, right? Like, if my Hobbit videos actually convinced people to dislike those films,

[2:36:17] Dishonored Wolf: Well, I don't think, when you point out the bad things in something that I think that really kind of strengthens the enjoyment for the really good things.

[2:36:34] Like I personally hold the Lord of the Ring movies to be the best movies I've ever seen in my life, and movies like the Last Jedi just kind of enforce why I love those movies so much, because the Last Jedi has so many problems that just aren't even present

[2:36:49] And so, when I see a bad movie, and I know and understand why it's bad, I think that helps make the good even better. Mauler: As Wolf just laid out, you can now gain enjoyment from it where you previously

[2:37:04] 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.

[2:37:18] 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.

[2:37:32] 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. An objective fact of quality must match predetermined measurable criteria and definitions.

[2:37:50] It follows rules and respects consistency, irrespective of feelings. Both of these forms of analysis have standards, and their quality is defined by the degree to which the standard is satisfied,

[2:38:03] be it the satisfaction of your feelings or the satisfaction of the craft. while showing how objectivity can affect subjectivity, but that we shouldn't shy away from it out of fear of losing enjoyment.

[2:38:18] it is meant to act as an offer to learn and grow. George Lucas: I would like to see our society mature, and become more rational and more knowledge-based, less emotion-based.

[2:38:35] Um, I would like to see education play a larger role in our daily lives, and um... you know, have people that come to a larger understanding,

[2:38:50] the bigger picture understanding of how we fit into the world not necessarily thinking of ourselves, but thinking of other. Think what you will of the man, but improving critical thinking through

[2:39:05] When it comes to facts about media or life itself, there are instances in which the truth and thus we refrain from sharing the truth and we label it a white lie.

[2:39:19] Just Write: No, but you've reduced the amount of enjoyment in the world, right? Mauler: To prevent a loss of enjoyment by avoiding the assessment would be a lie, and since I don't actually intend on sacrificing my integrity, I won't accept a lie.

[2:39:35] Life and art don't become meaningless by understanding the facts behind them, Timmy thought that the Sun was an alien, and at night the alien goes to sleep. The facts exist, and you can feel as you do in support of them,

[2:39:51] or regardless of them, just don't be so stubborn as to assume that what you felt happened Rewatch, redraft and explore more than just how you felt. Rian Johnson: ...and it can be sort of like that thing when you saw a movie a long time ago,

[2:40:05] "oh, that's completely different than I thought it was". But yeah, it all comes under the difference between arguing from emotion, or arguing from references and confirmable facts.

[2:40:19] Obviously I'm gonna screw up here and there, but I really have given it my best shot. We have so much to get through, so many stories, rules, characters, lore, tools, people, tech, Obviously I've only tackled about five minutes of the film,

[2:40:36] plaguing my channel as of recently. In a way, this will sort of work as an introduction to how I tackle media. and you'll get a bit of insight into how I do what I do,

[2:40:50] and that is why I was comfortable in releasing it on Christmas on its own. You can expect that now we're past the introduction, But it's not going to be quite like my usual release schedule that involves

[2:41:04] That is impossible this time. I will look forward to seeing you folks as they release weekly, from part 2 onwards, and I'm sure I will be called very angry, or very unhealthy from many YouTube medical experts.

[2:41:20] Patrick: If you are a person who thinks that SJW's or diversity or feminism ruined this movie, or if you're going to tell me that I should watch a five hour rant by some angry guy on YouTube...

[2:41:35] Oh well, integrity is hard, I suppose. And I look forward to 15 hours being referenced everywhere in future instead of five. Thank you all so much for your encouragement and support,

[2:41:48] I am so glad to finally be putting this series out, and I hope you're having fun with it. Thanks again, and I will see you next time. English subtitles made by MatrixLegion.

[2:42:03] Yoda: A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack. Yoda: Oooh! (f*** that s***)