“so there is a particularly flawed idea of media criticism that has gained a lot of popularity recently, it’s the idea that we can judge art “objectively””

Sage Hyden is Just Write, and is the final evolution of a video essayist.

History[edit | edit source]

PreFAP[edit | edit source]


Talk with Wolf and MauLer[edit | edit source]

Just Write was nice enough to come onto a stream with MauLer and Wolf to talk about film writing and The Last Jedi.

At one point, Just Write said that any review that makes somebody like a movie less is bad. Wolf brought up how he liked Just Write's old Hobbit videos that tore the films apart, and Just Write disavowed those videos.

The Last Jedi Criticism[edit | edit source]

lists things in last jedi, like child slavery, murder, failure, depression, says “disappointment” 3 times and ends it with… and Pokémon

these people can’t agree on basic facts of what happened there is a similar problem between people who liked this movie and people who hated it, who often feel like they seen completely different films and its weird that art is like this

holdo didn’t trust them to tell the plan

rose and fin see the child slavery as subjectively good

last jedi was “standard competent”

reading the romance: women, patriarchy and popular literature” they read rapidly, often skipping to the end, pay no attention to the literally style identify with the characters (especially heroines) and care most about story and plot line. they share strong dislikes, which is to say they have prescriptive criteria: No violent heroes, weak heroines, pornography, unhappy or ambiguous endings.” they didn’t want anything  to get in the way of their fantasy and saw things that did as bad writing

if you don’t answer 7 questions of character drama you story lacks energy, but answering questions doesn’t make the movie automatically good, not answering just lacks the energy, if you do, great, there are thousand more steps to go to make a good story, and his channel wouldn’t exist otherwise

how do we determine what constitutes well executed, how do viewers form an opinion of a film when they like some parts of it but hate the others how do they choose what to value and prioritize and when do they make those choices?

uses theory textbook as mic stand

whatever you get from the text is the text

since everyone watches media through their own lenses then there are many interpretations of the same media, where everyone can get something different from everything, since everyone worldview is different and so art is subjective

word soup=loud soup

everything in movie is metaphorical, to an extent

not telling how you should feel

Stanley fish, reader response literally movement:

  • Interpretive community is made up of those who share interpretive strategies not for reading (in the conventional sense) but for writing a text, for constituting their properties and assigning their intentions: people have many interpretations, but many people have similar ones, so communities that have interpreted the work the same way, they come to the same conclusion about media as they use same methods to analyze it.

we have to fill in the blanks in media we consume, and its filling is done by our own differing minds “we are writing the text while we read it” meaning is different for every person.

its fine to dislike a film because it did not meet your preexisting standards, but it may also be useful to you to recognize that that’s the case, to be aware of the context in which you are viewing something because its never the only context. as much as we want to develop principles that will help make story good, those goalposts are always changing based on the audience and are never universal.

reads books and underlines some lines

this is a brick, no its not, due to reader response theory I interpret it as a bird

you should create art that’s emotionally resonant, not intellectually satisfying.

doesn’t want to criticize as it would take someone elses enjoyment away, just wants to learn about others perspectives and enrichen his experience by getting to know something he might not have considered

Reader response theory (type of literally theory) book texts:

  • studied film on the mountains of arajeya and learned of super reader, implied readers and virtual readers, historical reader, ideal readers, resisting reader, critical readers
  • heresy of paraphrase
  • dominant mode of modern criticism
  • forbid us to locate meaning

The Battle for DX's Soul[edit | edit source]

On EFAP 47, the gang covered a video by DX. DX heard about the stream, and asked on Twitter whether or not he should go on, to which Just Write responded "don't do it." He deleted his Tweet shortly thereafter, but a FAPper was able to delve into the deep knowledge of their browser history to bring the Lore to light.

Art criticism[edit | edit source]

argued against his own channels premise (This is good writing, but good writing is not a thing)

establishing whenever or not media is good or bad is damaging to film discussion

the dark knight has more plotholes than any other good movie people know

you can make objective states like “George lucas is Star Wars creator”, but those are facts

subjective stuff like “George lucas is a brilliant writer” is opinions

thinks this as simple obvious things

thinks that “This movie is objectively bad” is person trying to present their opinion as fact

thinks that calling character writing being called a good is subjective, even though people teach how to write characters

thinks that the “objective critics” only think that “subjective critics” only care about the feelings and

with objectivity, critic could draw a theme from a movie, but another critic could objectively pick up something that is supported by facts. at this point ist not objective, but subjective. reading supported by facts

people have differing views on thing, so how do they found factual truth in their reading?

There is no objective beauty, its in the mind of the person, in the eye of the beholder, you cant say factually if its good, you can only judge it better by comparing things to one another and then deciding which of them is better in your opinion and comparing your opinion sith others so you can come into even better conclusion with more people backing it up.

Hamlet is good since lot of people over decades have declared it as good.

philosopher in past have said that the taste i subjective. there are three things, agreeable, beautiful and good. differenc beteween them is what the person desires:

agreeable is something that's functions, no matter how good or bad it is, like bad tasting food that you eat to survive. you can only say its agreeable

Things that we say are good are things that meet our desires.

beautiful is something that we don't need, like the agreeable or the good, so its unbiased

agreeable is something that people can disagree with,like how person finds one color agreeable while other finds it not. but beautiful is something people should have same or similar opinion on.

nature has things that people agree are pleasing to the eyes, but art is different as we are debating what the purpose of the piece of art is as painting or film doesn't have practical function and it can take life of itself without being dependent on the creator.

purpose of art is uncertain and people create their own purpose to it, if it ticks right amount of boxes and has what thye want from it then they are happy.

if you see movies as escaping anything that takes you out of the narrative is a flaw, but that doesn't make it more or less correct about what art should be. only if the medi ticks enough boxes in person mind then they will things things logically

its not objective to critic the last jedi for using slow bombers instead of w-wings as "most people don't know what a w-wing is or what its military purpose is", so you have to know about the lore and you have to think that following the lore is more important that impact of the scene. scene want to communicate us idea of why the ships are slow, which is why the they get easily destroyed

originally the first starwars movie had different ending shot, where the was no space battle and George had to choose which one he wanted to the movie, the low stake one where they just go and blow the death-star up or high stakes battle. Just write thinks there is no objective answer which one would be better choice as the finale.

thinks people that value objectivity don't care for subjectivity and want to end discussion.

"what i make about plot holes is this, they're usually not the real reason why people didn't enjoy a movie", there are deeper reasons why people didn't like a movie, plotholes are easy answer and people can easily think that the movie sucked because a plothole - nobody cares about plotholes when they are tied to a movie with good characters, good passing and interesting story.

people says he doesn't plan, so he couldn't have plans in the Dark Knight, money that has gasoline doesn't burn fast, its plot hole that we don't know what happens in the party when Joker throws girl out of window.

thinks that if the movies follower only logic you would just create "superficial pieces of art", objective side of the critique doesn't want movies that aren't 100% logically consistent

"media criticism can nourish the soul"

you should look for movies that communicate big things to us

EFAP 50 - Legend of Korra (Ironic!)[edit | edit source]

he loves it because it has big ideas, like totalitarianism, fascism and equality.

its "allegedly"a children cartoon, but tackles big ideas in "highly sophisticated way". allegedly.

all stories are like essays, or "essays in action", as both present idea as true, provide supporting evidence, and discredit the opposing positions

to understand this, he must talks about 19th century philosopher Hegel, who believes that you can learn things from any place, even from your enemies, having your own idea affected by other to synthesis them to one greater idea overall.

Korra fights people that represent idea, takes their ideas for herself and then tries to make them work better, she is the thesis to their anti-thesis. they are not mustache twirling villains, all of their ideas have merit

world has character arc by changing over the 4 seasons, so villains can claim a victory at the end of the series.

story is stale if the character doesn't learn anything from the villain

some scenes have the idea being told, which isn't that good

3rd season ending has poetic justice or irony where the villains power is turned against them, like air bender being defeated by air, people that beat him were other that got powers the same way he did, he wants anarchy but is defeated by people working together, he wanted to be free from everything but was the pulled from the sky and he lost because he chained Korra even when he talks about freedom.

Last airbender is about personal growth while the Korra is about testing beliefs and trying to find the common ground.

EFAP 97 - Last of Us Part 2[edit | edit source]

half way troughs the story seems to reach the climax when it takes the risky turn, showing regular revenge story where ellie gets bloodthirsty, then we cut to abby and we play from the villains perspective. this worked for him

the perspective switch worked because he was let to play as abby, so he could get invested in her instead of story telling him to be invested in her

you dont get invested on ellies problem when being called a dyke, but you get when you are show that scenes in a flash back. show works better

you should first play the game and then decide if you like it or not.

story cant just tell you to feel sorry for abby, it needs to show why you should feel sorry for her

interactivity is the most powerful weapon in games arsenal

players feel like they are abby since they play as her

Acknowledges that the Naughty Dog wants to fuck with the player

they play a song about someone that killed a person and went to jail during happy moment. this let violence seep into the scene, which happens in this game, as the game want you to feel contradictory emotions.

everything after the first game is joels fault as he did more damage to the world than anyone else, so abby killing him is justified, since without him there would have been cure. abbys reasons are extra special, since joel killed her dad

but we want to see Joel avenge because of the first game

all the game had to do was to get people to get invested in joels and ellies relationship

thinks that naughty dog made abby being villain in the first half and sympathetic in second part well, liking the trick the developers did to the players

people that don't like abby after playing as her are hypocrites as she is as bad as joel at the end of it and abby is more morally defensible than any other character

to get players to like abby, game uses tricks, like saving zebra to make her seem a good person and she has sympathetic motivation, as her dad is dead and she has lost her idealism and thoughts of the better world. so she becomes more powerful to kill joel. its great contrast as ellies body shivers as she looks for vengeance. abby also is relatable as she has scare of height and has to confront that fear in the game. some call these "tricks", just write calls them "solid writing tactics"

its good that abby gets her revenge and can have normal life again

we are meant to care for abby as she is good person, but the killing joel is massive hurdle. this is why he finds the game interesting as its about perspective

thinks people want to kill the sniper, but lot of people might want to kill abby

game is about acknowledging humanity of your enemies, as player character dismis their killings

most important thing is the final comforting, as both character are morally ambiguous and you don't know who to root for, as you don't want to kill either one

doesent like that game lets you kill people left and right, but then you are supposed to feel sorry when one person dies

we are supposed to disagree with ellie's decisions, but the game-play makes it ludonarratic dissonance, but the theme keeps it together

Trivia[edit | edit source]

  • His downward spiral into subjectivity began with his video claiming that Black Panther was good.[1]
  • He jumps up and down for joy every time he sees Rose Tico.[2]
  • "Seven" and "Canon" do not rhyme.[2]
  • his logic is like sperm that’s been working-out
  • has book called "save the cat", which talks about cheap trick of saving animal to make person seem good
  • If his content wasn't pretentious enough, his real name is "Sage" Heyden
  • references both Jack Saint and Patrick Willems videos as good
  • Wolf used to like his content before he evolved as a critic
  • doesn't think that The Room is objectively bad movie since people like it.
  • He was on the council of Star Wars Defined, and vetoed any suggestion of MauLer entering the project.[3]

Quotes[edit | edit source]

"questions I'd ask would be which parts okay, why does this matter to you more than anything else, the answers will tell you more about yourself than the movie"

“I had something really insightful to say”

“there is no such thing as objective criticism”

"wonderful characters of Star Wars the last"

“Star Wars fandom is a very strong interpretive community with extremely specific prescriptive criteria for what makes a good film and more importantly, what makes a good star wars film and I think that the most significant criteria that the last jedi fail to meet, according to this community, its unforgivable sin, its that it quote "disrespected the franchise" and I think what that phrase really means is that this movie screws up the core fantasy of star wars”

"that’s all well and good, but ticking boxes does not a good story make. the real problem with the last jedi is the execution"jedi"

"literally every death that happens after the first game is joels fault and every single person in the world has cause to see him punished"

"stories are inherently manipulative"

References[edit | edit source]

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.