Just Write

> "The idea I'm reacting against is the all-too-common phrase, 'this movie is objectively bad,' which presents an opinion as a fact."
>
>
> - EFAP 47
>
>
> "This isn't just about appeasing fans who shipped the characters... but I think it would have made this specific movie a tangibly better movie, a stronger story."
>
>
>
> - EFAP 69
>
>

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

## History

### Talk with Wolf and MauLer

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.

This debate led to the very first (pre-EFAP) EFAP meme, made by Lil Poteto.

### *The Last Jedi* Criticism

Lists things in *The 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 Finn see the child slavery as subjectively good

The 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 literary 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 a 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 a mic stand

whatever you get from the text is the text

since everyone watches media through their own lens 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 it's 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 else's enjoyment away, just wants to learn about others perspectives and enrich 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

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.

### On Art Criticism

> "Hoo boy! That is a lot of stuff. Kant is literally the most difficult literary critic to figure out"
>
>
>
>
> "Okay, so, first off, Kant's not a literary critic. Shut up, he's a philosopher."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Just Write and Theo
>
>

EFAP 47 continued with a look at the man himself, in his video "**Can You Judge Art Objectively?**" denouncing the idea that art could be judged objectively. Wolf joined MauLer, Southpaw, and resident guy who knows about philosophy Theo, who prefaced the coverage by pointing out that Kant's *The Critique of Judgment*, which Just Write references in his video, was written 200 years ago, asking the panel if they thought it had gone entirely unchallenged in the time since. After taking some time to talk about the cliche location-name movie font that Just Write put the word "objectively" in onscreen, they heard his first claim, that deeming media to be objectively good or bad is damaging to film discussion, MauLer found it interesting he said "damaging" rather than simply invalid, since if anything all EFAP does is discuss, to the point of being accused of discussing too much. Southpaw brought up the hypothetical conversation brought up in the Just Write debate where someone who considers a film objectively good and someone who considers the same film objectively bad don't change each other's minds at the end of the conversation but come away from it having still learned something, finding it funny that that hypothetical had in a way predicted the recent debate with Renns Reviews on *Jurassic World*. Just Write foreshadowed a later point by proclaiming that *The Dark Knight* has more plotholes than any other movie people know, to which the immediate response was of course what about *The Dark Knight Rises*? And beyond that, so what if it does?

Just Write explained that you can make objective statements like “George Lucas is the creator of *Star Wars*,” but those are called facts, to which nobody at all disagreed, obviously. He went on that you enter the realm of subjectivity the moment you say things like "Lucas is a brilliant writer" or "Luke is well-written," and anyone calling a film objectively good or bad is trying to present their opinion as fact. He presented critics who consider themselves objective as writing off subjective critics as only care about feelings as opposed to dealing with tangible facts. MauLer responded that he had no issue with someone simply stating their opinion on a film, since it would be absurd for him to argue to someone that they don't feel a feeling, but the issue comes when people use "just an opinion" as a shield against being corrected on something objectively wrong, citing the example of Hi-Top calling his *Homecoming* review just his opinion then claiming that Peter never faces consequences for his actions when he does. He added on that he also doubts most people watch a review to simply get someone's feelings on a movie, and want to hear the arguments as to *why* they feel that way.

Just Write argued that using objective facts from the film, one person could interpret *Star Wars* as having the theme of nature vs technology, since Luke foregoes the targeting computer to destroy the technologically-advanced Death Star, while someone else could argue the theme is atheism vs religion (which Theo pointed out does not even contradict the possibility of it being about nature vs technology), and while both of those are not influenced by emotions (the definition of objective), they are not objective, since they show their subjective perspectives. MauLer agreed that people can cherrypick movies to find a theme, but that is part of what he takes issue with, people being less than fully honest to push an idea, pointing out that Just Write's own examples were flimsy since Luke still used technology to defeat the Empire in the form of a spaceship and a missile, with Wolf adding that Vader was equally as "religious" as Luke was, and the clip Just Write used to portray the "atheistic" Empire was of Vader proving the Force was real to them. Theo differentiated these as readings pulling interpretations rather than an analysis of the content itself, and that even amongst interpretations there can be strong and weak interpretations, adding that the media you consumed has to factor in at some point, otherwise why even reference the media. MauLer contrasted Just Write's examples that had one faulty reference each against the argument that *The Last Jedi* failed at portraying its theme, since the film has Yoda state its moral of "failure is the greatest teacher" overtly, and the events depicted in the film have characters not learning from failure.

Just Write cited the philosopher David Hume, who argued that beauty is subjective, but that one can develop their taste to better find beauty, without going into how one does that. Hume also argued that people can become experts and experts can reach a consensus, effectively acting like an objective standard - Hamlet is good because a lot of people over the decades have deemed it good. He contrasted this with Kant, who argued that taste is subjective, which must be true, because Kant said it. He laid out three descriptors of value - agreeable, beautiful, and good. Agreeable describes something that is not good but fulfills its purpose, like bad food for a starving person. Good describes something that meets our desires, so a hammer is objectively good at hammering nails. Beautiful descibes something that is not needed, like a flower's looks, and therefore can be judged in an unbiased manner. While a color could be agreeable to some and disagreeable to others, something beautiful gives people the sense that everyone should hold a similar opinion to them. Just Write elaborated that nature may contain things that people agree are beautiful, but art is different since the purpose of art is up for debate. Theo already took issue with Just Write's summary of Kant, since Kant was not a literary critic and his critique of art was only a tertiary topic to his much broader views on metaphysics, additionally disagreeing with Kant's claim that someone could judge beauty from a position of disinterest, and countered that what he's seen EFAP try to do is categorize what parts of art that they can under "good" rather than "beautiful," judging how well a story functions the same way one would judge how well a hammer hammers nails.

Going off of that topic, Theo argued that there is not much value in saying a painting's purpose is to be a painting or a story's purpose is to be a story, since that doesn't reveal much more than a definition. MauLer responded that the other value of art's purpose being to get an emotional response doesn't give anything to be measured since someone may simply not respond emotionally, and the only standard that could be measured without being subjective is an intrinsic property - an art piece must do a thing to be the thing that it is. For example, a story must show a progression of events or it is not a story, or writing must be readable in order to be writing - those things are not projected onto it, that is what they are. A carpenter wouldn't argue that a joint is subjectively a dovetail joint, even if the term was created by humans you could still apply the term objectively. Theo replied that he'd not heard it put that way before and would have to get back to him on it, and MauLer concurred that it is an ongoing topic, with Theo adding that the debate has existed for some time and each faction gains more nuance to their claim.

Naturally, Just Write related this to *The Last* *Jedi*, and seemingly summoned by an attempt to defend the film, Wolf returned to the call (with pizza), just in time to hear Just Write defend the design of the bombers in place of the superior Y-wings on the grounds that "most people don't know what a Y-wing is" and shout at him for saying something so dense. Just Write argued that noticing the lack of Y-wings would require you to have a certain level of knowledge, to which Theo asked why it is a bad thing for critique of a piece of media to require knowledge of the media. Just Write argued that the worse bombers were used to communicate the idea that the ships are slow, justifying why they were easily destroyed, as if there was no other way that the bombers could have been destroyed easily, and that the lack of Y-wings would only be considered an issue by someone who values continuity over the impact of that scene, which the roster argued was not a dichotomous thin. To top it off, Just Write accompanied his claim that Y-wings were obscure with footage of Y-wings from *Rogue One*, which had come out a year prior. He went on to explaine that *Star Wars* originally ended with them destroying the Death Star with ease, lacking the climactic dogfight, and argued that there was no objectively better ending because the original one lacked tension while the chosen ending had its own issues, claiming that Leia should not have gone back to the Rebel Base since she knew they were being tracked, and the Empire should have destroyed the planet they were orbiting and let them go off orbit rather than wait for the moon to enter range. MauLer countered that Leia deemed the risk worth taking to get the plans to the Rebels, and allowing Yavin IV to go off orbit wouldn't kill the Rebels.

He put forth that plot holes aren't the real reason why people usually dislike a movie, and the roster thanked him for letting them know what people feel. He argued there are deeper reasons why people don't enjoy a movie, recommending people watch Jack Saint's video on the subject to find out more, causing Wolf to burst into a fit of laughter. He then recommended Patrick Willems' "SHUT UP ABOUT PLOT HOLES" video where he famously told people they were watching movies wrong, and an article on the shortcomings of thinking logically. He then went into his own view on why there are better ways to analyze film, which he openly admitted was just his subjective opinion. He brought back up The Dark Knight, listing off a volley of plot holes with no regard for their impact on the story CinemaSins-style, arguing that Joker would require extensive planning which contradicts him claiming he has no plan, ignoring that Joker is a liar who intentionally obscures his background as evidenced by him telling contradictory backstories and having untraceable custom-made clothing. He jabbed that money doesn't burn as fast as it did, ignoring that it was doused in gasoline, and asked what happened at the party Joker crashed after Batman left, which was not a plot hole and simply an unanswered question, and it could be inferred that since he was there for Harvey Dent he would have left upon not finding him. MauLer pointed out that any plot holes he did correctly describe would if anything bolster their point, since that would show a movie could have issues objectively but still be liked subjectively. Just Write concluded that the reason people did not notice these plot holes was because the movie had good pacing, because. He assured everyone that he was not saying logic doesn't matter, since it often does (when?), and *every* decision made in filmmaking matters. He immediately followed this up by saying focusing on plot holes will create hollow pieces of art, and the purpose of his channel is to teach (objectively?) good writing, which should focus on content and not form. MauLer asked what is form if not created by the content, and tangented on the broader topic of plot vs theme, arguing that if your goal is to simply send a message, then just write a poem or an essay, but if your goal is to tell that lesson *through* a story, then the story has to function as well as the theme.

Just Write referenced yet another philosopher, Alexander Pope, with a quote from him asserting that bad criticism does more damage than bad writing (objectively?), arguing that bad criticism influences more art to be bad, and therefore criticism too focused on logic will make movies too focused on logic, raising the question of how a film can be *too* focused on anything if art's purpose is subjective. He claimed this came at the expense of story, character, and theme, even though once again it is not dichotomous. He expressed that he wouldn't want someone to decide there is no point in writing their story because it doesn't make perfect logical sense, raising the question of why not just improve the story rather than simply give up entirely. He gave the example of not wanting to live in a world where the Wachowskis never made *The Matrix* because it didn't match the laws of thermodynamics, to which the roster responded that a science fiction film having fictional science isn't illogical, adding that no one is asking for perfection anyway, and almost all films have flaws but writers can strive to make them less flawed. Just Write concluded that art criticism can do so much more than just deem something good or bad, to which MauLer countered that the argument given for *why* the movie is good or bad would be where that substance is found. Just Write stated his goal to explore this, which was why this video was the first episode in a series called History of Arguments (of which no more episodes were made). Theo was insulted that he would claim knowledge on the topic after how he butchered Hume's and Kant's ideas.

### *Legend of Korra* (Ironic!)

In EFAP 50, MauLer and the gang were made aware of Just Write's video "**What Writers Should Learn From The Legend Of Korra**." With E;R in the roster, it only made sense to give it a look.

he loves it because it has bigideas, like totalitarianism, fascism, and equality - Bigideas discovered

it is "allegedly" a children's 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 talk 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 an 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 Airbender being defeated by air, people that beat him 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.

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

### On Tangibly Better Movies and Jumping with Joy

During EFAP 69 (Part 2), MauLer showed the Rags, ThatStarWarsGirl, and JLongbone a clip from Just Write's video on *The Rise of Skywalker*, where Just Write said that the movie wasted time on new, needless characters like Zorii Bliss and Jannah that could have been spent developing the relationship between Finn and Poe. Just Write argued that developing a relationship between the two of them would not just appeal to people who wanted to see them in a relationship, but would have made the movie a tangibly better movie. With this statement, Just Write made a clear distinction between something that somebody simply likes because it did something they personally want, and the actual quality of that thing on its own merits, though he avoided using the words "subjective" and "objective" to describe them.

Just Write also mentioned how he literally jumped with joy every time Rose Tico was onscreen. He also said "seven" rhymed with "canon," which is only a little bit true.

### On *The Last of Us Part II*

MauLer, Rags, Weekend Warrior, HeelVsBabyFace, and Theo next encountered Just Write on EFAP 97, when they took a look at his video "**Why I Liked The Last Of Us Part I**I".

game taking the risk of cutting to the villain's perspective halfway through after a seeming climax worked for him

describes Ellie getting more bloodthirsty as she goes for revenge - not really more bloodthirsty, tricked by the high concept

play don't show - lots of things are shown not played, should have said play don't tell, but lots is told not shown too

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

you don't get invested in Ellie's problem when being called a dyke, but you get when you are show that scenes in a flashback. show works better

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

story can't 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 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 Joel's 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 a cure. Abby's reasons are extra special, since Joel killed her dad - birth of J03L, The Destroyer of Zebras

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

all the game had to do was to get people to get invested in Joel and Ellie's 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 Ellie's body shivers as she looks for vengeance. Abby also is relatable as she is scared of height and has to confront that fear in the game. some call these "tricks," Just Write calls them "solid writing tactics"

it's good that Abby gets her revenge and can have normal life again

we are meant to care for Abby as she is a good person, but the killing of Joel is massive hurdle. this is why he finds the game interesting as it is 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 characters dismiss 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

doesn't 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 ludonarrative dissonance, but the Theme keeps it together

## Trivia

* His downward spiral into subjectivity began with his video claiming that *Black Panther* was good.
* "Seven" and "Canon" do not rhyme (EFAP 69)
* 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
* He is so pretentious that his first name is Sage
* Wolf unsubscribed from him after he evolved as a critic (EFAP 47)
* 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.

## Quotes

* "At this point, *The Critique of Judgment*, which is the book by Immanuel Kant that Just Write is gonna reference here, is about 200 years old, so who here thinks that it's gone unchallenged in the field of aesthetics for 200 years?"
"Well if there's anything that I know about philosophers it's that they love to agree with each other all the time"
- Theo and Rags, EFAP 47
* "So today I'm going to explain all the many reasons there is no such thing as objective criticism"
"In 20 minutes"
- Just Write and Theo, EFAP 47
* "We've come to two slightly different readings of the same film, and neither of them is objective"
"Because neither of them make sense!"
- Just Write and Wolf, EFAP 47
* "The fact that you consumed a piece of media has to count for something. Like, the interpretation comes from the piece of media, otherwise why do we need the media itself? Why don't we just do the interpretation and who needs the media?" - Theo, EFAP 47
* "But this lands us in a bit of a pickle that is a sticking point for a lot of people"
"He used the Pickle Rick animation there because he has a very high IQ"
- Just Write and Southpaw, EFAP 47
* "How do we know what's true?" - Just Write's title card, EFAP 47
* "But, y'know, we're not gonna get anymore from Of *The Standard of Taste* in this video, so you'd have to wonder if spending exactly a *minute* on a *book* is not a great idea"
"Well Theo, in his defense, long critique is not deep critique."
- Theo and Southpaw, EFAP 47
* "So, I'm not gonna read all this out, because-"
"Because that would be work"
- Just Write and MauLer, EFAP 47
* "What if there was a story about a guy who was trying to defend a movie he really liked through a standard that was nonsensical and went on a stream where he was unable to defend it, and then he went as far as being frustrated by that event, and so looked into philosophers who may or may not have discussed this particular subject, read a brief summary of their work on Wikipedia, and then constructed a video with a couple of jabs, and snarkiness, while also referencing them to make it seem like he's actually got a lot of clout here, to conclude on the subject and then move on with his channel as if he got the final word? What if that happened? I'm not saying that happened, but what if that happened?" - MauLer, EFAP 47
* "Can I ask you guys a question... where did Kant and Hume go?" - Theo, EFAP 47
* "The core blockades that were there are still the core blockades. Even from Kant's time and the idea of the fact-value distinction and defining an art object and the purpose of art and such like, these are all still big hangups. The difference is that people have become more entrenched in their positions as they've become more nuanced. The positions are more intricate than they were before. but they haven't moved forward in any sense. No one's gone, 'right, we've solved it.'" - Theo, EFAP 47
* "Most people do not know what a Y-Wing is and even fewer know what its military purpose is,"
"Okay, first off... fuckface... everyone knows what a fuckin Y-Wing is! Anyone that's watched Star Wars knows what a fuckin Y-Wing is! It's been here since the first fuckin movie released forty fuckin years ago! Don't tell me that people don't know what a fuckin Y-Wing is, you disingenuous faggot!"
- Just Write and Wolf, EFAP 47
* "Money doesn't burn this fast" - EFAP 47, describing money that is doused in gasoline
* "If you notice a plot hole in one movie, and not in *The Dark Knight*, it's because *The Dark Knight* has better pacing" - EFAP 47
* "Media analysis can, for lack of a better phrase, nourish the soul." - EFAP 47
* "Support everyone that is *not* Just Write"
"I like the idea that in the mission to support everyone who's not Just Write, someone goes and supports Patrick Willems cuz the hardest choices require the strongest will"
- Wolf and Theo, EFAP 47

* "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"
* "Literally every death that happens after the first game is Joel's fault and every single person in the world has cause to see him punished." - EFAP 97
* "Stories are inherently manipulative"
* "This episode is the first in a new mini-series" - on his "Can You Judge Art Objectively?" video, after which he has yet to make another episode
* "That's ironic" - on things that aren't ironic

## References

1. ↑ EFAP #2 - "SHUT UP ABOUT PLOT HOLES" and "We need to talk about Film Criticism"
2. ↑ EFAP #78 - RE: "Why I loved Rise of Skywalker" - "It made me appreciate TLJ more" w/ WW, JLB and Jay