Patrick Willems

```
Disclaimer: The subject of this article is white, and therefore his opinions should not be taken seriously

```

## EFAP Information

### Latest Appearance

EFAP 125

> "Now I know it seems impossible to watch movies wrong... but you're watching movies wrong"
>
>

> - EFAP 2
>
>

**Patrick "Patrick (H) Willems" Willems** is a YouTube video essayist. He is very intelligent, as he has a film degree and is therefore better than inferior YouTubers who don't. He's the only member of PAFE who publicly supports MovieBob. He specializes in letting people know the correct way to watch movies and many of his videos are thinly-veiled attempts to convince people that *The Last Jedi* is actually good, making him PAFE's head propagandist.

Patrick is perhaps most known for his defense of *The Last Jedi* as "a movie about space wizards intended for children," and therefore not worthy of any strong negative emotional reactions it may illicit, while having strong positive emotionals reactions to it that occupy his thoughts for months. He essentially devalues the movie he thinks so highly of by saying it's for kids and shouldn’t stand up to scrutiny, and doesn’t consider that the murder, death, and dismemberment the franchise contains and the PG-13 ratings the films often receive might make it unsuitable for the very children he claims it was created for.

## History

> "The giant alien cow thing that Luke milks is one of my favorite additions to this whole series, and if you don't like it, you have boring taste and I don't want to be friends with you."
> - EFAP 4
>
>

### Vs Logic Itself

> "Acting logically is at odds with acting human"
>
>

MauLer, Rags, Wolf, and Fortea first encountered Patrick Willems on the second episode of their as of yet unnamed podcast, where they took a look at his video boldy titled "SHUT UP ABOUT PLOT HOLES." The gang found it fitting that Patrick would be against caring about logical consistency in a movie's plot, since he is a fervent defender of *The Last Jedi* and *The Last Jedi's* greatest enemy is logic, making it imperative to discredit the very idea of logic itself. With the video starting up, MauLer commented how he could see how the channel was popular, since the editing and production were snazzy and slick. Patrick began by stating that plot holes used to be a super nerdy topic - this makes it bad - but for some reason the topic has become more mainstream. MauLer put forth that the reason plot hole talk is more prevalent is because plot holes themselves are more prevalent, and this is bolstered by many films today being reboots or sequels to well-written movies, so them being poorly written stings more. Wolf, ever ready with a list of films, read out a list of bad films that had come out that year. Patrick bolstered his point with a montage of people saying "plot holes," and MauLer expressed that he was a little bummed he didn't show up in it, though thankfully people in Patrick's comments brought him up. The montage ended with horror music and a bold-texted "THEY'RE EVERYWHERE" against a red background. MauLer brought up that plot holes are far from the only thing people are criticizing, and they'd of course say that's not all that matters. When Patrick scoffed at someone who had made a list of plot holes in *A Quiet Place*, MauLer argued that it's hard not to bring up plot holes a movie like that since its whole premise is built on the idea of rules not being broken.

Patrick proclaimed that nobody even knows what a plot hole is, prompting MauLer to ask the gang their definitions without looking it up. Wolf answered that a plot hole is when shit doesn't make any goddamn sense and is completely inconsistent with the story it's trying to tell, and Rags answered that it is a story being inconsistent with its own rules. MauLer gave the example of when a character knows something they don't have a reference for or doesn't know something they do have a reference for, summing it up as something happening when the rules of the universe have told you that they can't happen, a base contradiction. He added the caveat of a hypothetical movie being inconsistent in portraying sound in space, which *would* be an inconsistency but not a plot hole since it's just aesthetic, unless it affects the plot, which he contrasted with Finn not knowing about the hyperspace tracker then later saying he knows where it is because he has experience with it, which very much does affect the plot. Fortea kept it simple, defining it as an inconsistency within the plot *line*, hence the wording "plot hole." Regardless of definition, MauLer found it funny to tell people that they're already wrong because they don't know the definition of a word, then argue your point anyway. Patrick said that people's definitions vary (prompting MauLer to ask how people can not know the definition if their definitions vary) but the definition he uses (why not use something more universal like a dictionary definition?) is "a point in which a story breaks a previously established rule about its universe, basically when a story contradicts itself.”

Patrick also dropped the bombshell that plot holes don't actually matter, but before explaining why, he began by explaining what plot holes are *not*, starting with...

**SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS OFFSCREEN**

At the sight of this title card, MauLer pitched a hypothetical movie in which a character grows several feet between scenes, with the justification, "he could've had surgery between then to lengthen his legs." Rags similarly pitched a character in a wheelchair getting somewhere non-wheelchair accessible, with the justification that their legs could have healed and then broken again offscreen, the point being that whether an offscreen event is a plot hole or not, as the famed Bilbo Baggins once said, is about context.

Patrick explained the concept of montage, snidely commenting that it was conceived under the false assumption that audiences are "reasonably intelligent," arguing that if someone starts off in one location, then is in another location in the next scene, the audience can assume that they traveled there in between scenes, something that nobody would ever disagree with. He used this to answer his friend (whom he punched in the face with Hulk gloves for even asking) wondering aloud how a bankrupt Bruce Wayne got from an obscure prison in a far-off country to a city under lockdown by a militia in *The Dark Knight Rises*, as if that was the same as a man who can walk walking to a location that can be walked to. Patrick concluded that, ”If movies showed us every single second that happened during the span of the story, they would be forty hours long and (with title card accompaniment) REALLY F\*\*\*ING BORING,” to which MauLer challenged Patrick to find one person who said they wanted to see Bruce Wayne take every single step back to Gotham.

MauLer's friend Passion of the Nerd was in the Chat and attempting to steelman Patrick's points, asking if knowing how Bruce got back to Gotham would actually improve the movie, leading MauLer to raise the question of whether that would be a strict contradiction or simply a lack of information where there could actually be an explanation, and answered that it may not specifically be a plot *hole*, but it regardless lowers the stakes when Bruce can simply overcome great obstacles under the excuse of "he's got his methods," rather than being shown how he overcomes those obstacles.

**WHEN A CHARACTER DOES SOMETHING YOU WOULDN'T DO**

> "Movies are for the most part about human beings, or at least characters that think and act like human beings, and you know what human beings are not? Logical. People are impulsive, they make choices based on emotion not everyone thinks exactly the same, but also people make mistakes”
>
>

MauLer once again took the title card as an opportunity to tell the anecdote of Just Write (or maybe HelloGreedo) tweeting out a few days after their debate that it's annoying people criticize Holdo for not doing what THEY would do, since Holdo is her own person with her own motivations. MauLer asked in response to that if Holdo valued people's lives, to which the answer would of course be yes, raising the question of why she then let Poe almost get everyone killed rather than pacify him. He also added that no one takes issue with a character like Homer SImpson acting stupid, because he is established to be a stupid man.

Patrick's video had his friend bring up the characters in *A Quiet Place* choosing not to live by the river and choosing to have children, for which Patrick once again punched him with Hulk gloves, explaining that human beings are not logical, and make decisions based on emotions, to which MauLer asked what emotion motivates someone to *not* protect themself from a monster, especially when they have been in this scenario for two years, and have acknowledged that the river is a safe place and are building a soundproof room for when the baby comes, meaning they know that these things are a good idea but chose not to do them for the past two years.

Someone in Chat countered with the oft-cited "because then there'd be no movie," to which MauLer responded that it's the writers's job to get creative about these things - they could have had it so the protagonists start out living by the river but are required to leave for resources. Fortea offered that they could have just not put the waterfall in the movie in the first place, with Rags adding that the only thing the waterfall establishes is that louder sounds cover up softer sounds, which everyone already knows anyway.

Patrick cited the Vulcans from *Star Trek*, aliens who behave entirely logically and without emotion, drawing from that the message that to act logically is at odds with acting human, to which MauLer corrected that *only* being logical is not human, and humans are motivated by both logic *and* emotion. Patrick then argued that purely logical characters would lead to no conflict and no story once again calling such a thing ",REALLY F\*\*\*ING BORING," an odd claim given that he had just cited the Vulcans, fictional characters who do engage in conflict and do have stories. Rags likened Patrick's argument to an abuse of the Insanity Defense, excusing any bad action as being the result of temporary insanity.

**A PLOT CONTRIVANCE**

Patrick's friend scoffed at the convenience of the Death Star having a weakness in its exhaust port, and Patrick once again punched him with Hulk gloves. MauLer pushed back on the idea that it was even a contrivance by pointing out that the Rebels had the plans to the whole station, and with the blueprints to a given machine you can of course find weaknesses (a car can be taken out of commission by cutting one wire), and exploiting said weakness was far from easy since they lose every man but one and Luke has to use the Force to exploit it. Patrick agreed that some of these contrivances are valid complaints, calling Kirk happening to land on the same planet as a time-displaced Spock contrived and lazy, but they are still not plot holes, setting the bizarre standard that a plot *contrivance* can be a valid complaint, but a plot *hole*, which is a more severe example of a plot contrivance, can't be.

**SOMETHING THAT IS EXPLAINED IN THE MOVIE**

Patrick's friend asked how DJ knew the Resistance's plan in The Last Jedi, and Patrick once again punched him with Hulk gloves, before explaining that the film does show DJ overhearing the plan being discussed. MauLer told the anecdote about E;R having made that same point in his review, and conceding it was a mistake when MauLer DM'ed him about it. MauLer congratulated Patrick for correctly stating that being wrong is wrong.

Patrick concluded his listing of alleged plot holes that are explained with, "But I guess if you're too busy live-tweeting about plot holes, you can miss some stuff," implying that there are legitimate ones to find. The gang raised the question of why it even matters if people are wrong about these being plot holes, since human beings aren't supposed to be logical anyway.

Before Patrick moved on, the gang took a break to read a comment that had been posted on his video, which thanked Patrick profusely for standing up against plot hole talk, and bemoaning the fact that MauLer had made a five-hour critique of *The Last Jedi*, accusing him of spending the whole video focusing only on plot holes and arguing any other way of viewing the film doesn't matter, something MauLer did not, in fact, do. This accusation became even more awkward given that later in his video, Patrick himself would indeed say that certain people are watching movies wrong, and the things they value in filmmaking don't matter. The commenter then proclaimed that there is no objective way to view a film, and went even further to say that is the reason why film has any value in the first place, somehow of the belief that something would have no value if you could determine its value. They then argued that if there was a way to judge art objectively, it would actually be the opposite of what MauLer thinks, since plot consistency is inconsequential, a conclusion they were somehow able to come to even though doing so is apparently impossible.

Now that Patrick was done debunking false plot holes, he was on to telling us why plot holes don't matter, raising the question of why he even needed to prove the previous things weren't plot holes. Patrick argued that every movie has plot holes, to which MauLer put forth that it wouldn't surprise him if *In Bruges* doesn't, since the plot is very simple and down-to-Earth. Willems cited the infamous eagles from *The Lord of the Rings*, which MauLer was willing to concede was a plot hole, but Wolf brought up someone in Chat bringing up Gandalf explaining that Saruman controls the skies through the Nazgûl and Fellbeasts, to which MauLer countered that while that does help there are still some questions left unanswered by that explanation that could have done with an extra line or two, but regardless Patrick pointing out one or a handful of films having plot holes wouldn't prove that all do. A few of the plot holes he cited were actually wrong (probably because Patrick was too busy focusing on plot holes to pay attention to the movies), namely questioning why the acid in Alien didn't keep eating through the lower floors, apparently under the belief that acid never neutralizes and that any acid spills would require the fire department to stop the acid from reaching the Earth's core. He brought up possible issues with Die Hard but waved them away on the grounds of John McClane being just an ordinary guy - McClane was an off-duty cop. He even tried to point out plot holes in his own video, citing the fact that he was wearing sunglasses indoors as a plot hole.

Rags interjected to point out that people like Patrick are taking the same position they accuse MauLer of taking, pointing out a single plot hole and saying it would discredit a film, rather than having the more nuanced perspective of some films having both strengths and weaknesses to different degrees, and of saying that if you deem a film bad it can't be enjoyed. This became exacerbated by Patrick's infamous claim that people are actually watching movies wrong, something MauLer is regularly accused of believing despite having never said. In the same vein, Patrick and others will often switch between objective and subjective depending on what fits their argument at the time.

Patrick said that you can care about plot holes all you wan't, but don't say they're genuine flaws... because they're not. Movies are not about logic, despite Patrick having regularly used logic to defend various films, and thinking about these sorts of things disengages people from the film. MauLer argued that that doesn't actually counter the people who point these things out, because they *did* think about it and that's what caused them to disengage from the film - that is the issue they had, and if that flaw in logic didn't exist then they wouldn't have been disengaged from the film and would have enjoyed it more. MauLer asked if Patrick agrees that the issue exists, and agrees that noticing the issue will disengage you, then does he think people who noticed it and were disengaged as a result are just bad people? He also raised the question of what if Patrick pointing these issues out causes someone to notice it on next viewing and takes them out of the film. Not done running defense for *The Last Jedi*, Willems conceded that it would have made sense for Holdo to tell Poe she had a plan, but that doesn't matter because then there would be no conflict. Immediately after saying it doesn't matter if Holdo's plan makes sense, Patrick argues that her plan makes sense, because Holdo says he's reckless, he fucked up (by saving the entire fleet), and he was recently demoted (from Commander to Captain, which is still fairly high-ranking), prompting MauLer to ask why it is a good idea to let the reckless hothead who takes matters into his own hands believe that you have no plan. Patrick cited the bit from *Community* where Abed acts out a perfectly logical horror movie, using it to further drive home the point that behaving logically would lead to there being no story, but luckily MauLer is also a fan of *Community*, and had taken away from that skit that it was a parody of poor decision-making in horror movies, challenging Patrick to find the issues parodied in a well-written horror movie like *Alien*. Patrick brought up that Batman V Superman has plenty of plot holes, but those don't matter - the real problem is that the characters don't grow. MauLer cited character like the Joker, as well as plenty of other villains since often what makes someone a villain is that they don't learn from their wrongdoings, as well as more heroic characters like Jack Sparrow, Indiana Jones, and Walter Sobchak, whose appeal comes not from them developing but from them interacting with the world around them.

Patrick shows Angry Joe asking how the Supremacy isn't powerful enough to penetrate ship's shields then compares him to insufferable know-it-all nerd character from Simpsons

Patrick ended by asking how this all happened. MauLer put forward that older films tended to have simpler plots but executed them well, while newer films often try to have more complex plots, which can be done well, but it's harder to pull off. Patrick, on the other hand, argues it was the internet, explaining that he looked up the usage of the phrase "plot hole" online and saw it used to only show up in film review sites, then became more mainstream. Patrick went on to tell of how Cracked.com posted an article on plot holes in 2008, then TVTropes made a plot hole page in 2009, then articles kept popping up in 2010, describing it like the spread of a disease. MauLer countered that that doesn't mean people didn't pick up on this stuff, just that they've only recently learned the term for it, and Rags compared Cracked.com's introduction of plot holes to how Isaac Newton invented gravity, since it didn't exist before he came up with a name for it. MauLer points out none of the articles shown say you should stop liking the movies just because they had plot holes in them, and even if they did that would make them no worse than Patrick, who has taken the stance that people are watching movies wrong. Patrick ended his story with 2012, the year things really took off, since that was when YouTube videos entered the fray, and millennials usually consume movie analysis on YouTube. Rags found it odd that the complaint about millennials is usually that they're stupid and thoughtless, but Patrick is complaining that millennials think about things too much. Patrick illustrated this argument with the CinemaSins logo accompanied by horror sound effects, prompting MauLer to ask if anyone actualy looks to CinemaSins as a serious source of film analysis. Patrick concluded that this was not really anybody's fault... except CinemaSins... but a natural progression of events that will keep happening as long as people keep uploading nitpicks for clips. MauLer found this ironic since an all caps-titled "PLOT HOLES DON'T MATTER" video filled with bold sweeping statements and dramatic retellings of events could easily be considered clickbait in its own right.

Before signing off, Patrick made sure to let us know that this video could not have been done without Sennheiser.

#### YMS Chimes In

During their coverage MauLer and the gang learned that Adam of YourMovieSucks.org had left a lengthy comment on Willems' video, which they read out after finishing the video. YMS initially copy-pasted his comment from a reddit thread about the video, saying he felt Patrick's distinction between criticisms that matter and don't matter was fairly arbitrary and even contradictory, and it felt elitist to tell people that certain parts of their experience with a film weren't worth commenting on, especially since those things can take someone out of a movie just like anything else can. He later edited his comment to add on a bit more, stating he found it odd Patrick considered character actions not worth criticizing but character motivations to be worth it, since one impacts the other, and concluded by saying many creators put painstaking work into making their story as tight as possible and to dismiss that quality as unimportant can devalue that work.

Adam was told that MauLer and Co were reading his comment on stream, and joined the Chat during the second half of it to say hello and lurk.

### On Real, Traditional Critics

> "With a movie like *Black Panther*, a review by a twenty-five-year-old white guy on YouTube is probably not going to have much to offer"
>
>

EFAP 2 continued with the gang taking a look at Patrick's other video "We Need to Talk About Film Criticism," which had been released a few months before the one they'd just watched. Humorously enough, Patrick prefaced his main argument by saying "And I'm not coming here to tell you that you're wrong, unless you are actually wrong about indisputable facts," woefully unaware that he would indeed tell people that their opinions are wrong and advocate against caring about indisputable facts just a few months later. This is what confirmed that Patrick had evolved as a critic.

Patrick proclaimed that art criticism has been around since the 1600s, which struck MauLer and co as odd since it would presumably have been around for as long as art has. He started off by explaining that critics are not bought or bribed, since there is no benefit to giving competitors bad reviews as it doesn't hurt their box office yields, raising the question of why it matters if paying off critics is illogical, since as we all know, people do illogical things all the time. Patrick then immediately followed his claim that there is no logical reason to bribe reviewers by admitting that movie studios do want good reviews because it helps market the film. Rags also mentioned how he himself has been offered free stuff in exchange for positive reviews. He also argued that critics are individuals, so complaining about them as a collective isn't sensical, which would become ironic when he went on to complain about newer reviewers as a collective. He also denounced the idea that critics hate everything, which nobody believed in the first place anyway, especially since a common complaint about critics is that they rate bad things very highly. He clarified that he wasn't talking about video essayists, even specifying that he doesn't consider himself a film critic even if he critiques films.

Patrick recounted how he asked his followers on Twitter who their favorite film critics were and was surprised and concerned that his YouTube audience mostly cited YouTubers, with a lack of what he called "traditional" written reviewers. He proclaimed that criticism's purpose was to tell you not just what to see but how to see it, and that a critic should have an understanding of film history and bring it to their review. He added that most reviewers are straight white men, and their reviews are shallow, to which Rags and Wolf were relieved that as bisexual their reviews at least have something going for them. They also noted that Roger Ebert, as well as most "traditional" reviewers, were also straight white men, and therefore shouldn't be seen as an authority. Patrick made note to exempt Bob Chipman from this complaint on the grounds that he just writes traditional written reviews and turns them into videos, with Rags and MauLer (Wolf was fortunate enough to not know who he was at the time) finding it insane that Patrick would stand by MovieBob of all people.

Patrick let the audience know that of course he uses reviews to know what films he'll see, making it even odder that he earlier said that there was no reason to pay off film critics. Rags realized that Patrick contradicts himself as much as he does because he doesn't listen to himself, because he is a straight white man.

Patrick read out a quote from Roger Ebert saying critics should encourage critical thinking, which was strange given that humans aren't logical. He put forth that the difference between most YouTubers and the best traditional critics is that YouTubers tend to just regurgitate people's own opinions back to them, to which MauLer countered that he would defend even his least favorite YouTube critics against that accusation. He read another quote describing movies and TV as visual and aural art forms, and just critiquing the writing of it only does half the job, if even that, making it no better than a book report or a political op-ed, raising the question of whether that would make video essays *better* than traditional reviews, since they can incorporate visuals, and how someone like MovieBob doesn't just count as political op-eds about movies. Funnily enough, MauLer's friend sent him a quote from Roger Ebert complaining about none other than plot holes. YMS was lurking in chat, and similarly posted an Ebert quote about plot holes with a caption saying that Ebert watches movies wrong.

Patrick ended his video by recommending people watch "traditional reviewers," and then tacked on a section at the end where he calls CinemaSins garbage.

### Patrick Explains STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI (And Why It's Great)

> [Mario death tune]
>
>
> "... havin fun there Wolf?"
>
>
>
> - Wolf and MauLer
>
>

   Not too long after their initial look at him, MauLer and Wolf regrouped to have another go at a Willems video in EFAP 4, this time taking Patrick's advice and seeking counsel with Indonesian YouTuber Appabend, who had previously done his own response to Patrick's plot holes video and was allowed to comment on such matters since he isn't white, gaining him the title of The Brown Knight (though this may not have been necessary since *Star Wars* still has plenty of white people in it to criticize).

This time around, Patrick set out to explain why *The Last Jedi* was a great movie, apparently not having done so enough in his previous videos, and started off by suggesting that he doesn't actually know why people dislike it to begin with. Right off the bat came a reference to MauLer's critique of the film, which Patrick wrote off as an angry 5-hour rant that he won't watch, as well as Patrick's infamous "this is a movie about space wizards intended for children" quote, which the gang found ironic given he has already spent three videos gushing about the movie and has described himself as unable to stop thinking about it. He clarified that his comments scoffing at people taking the movie seriously weren't telling people not to take the movie seriously, just to calm down, while he himself remained very uncalm. After 5 minutes, Patrick finished his disclaimer, and moved on to actually saying something of substance. Around this time, Wolf began playing the Mario death sound any time Patrick said something wrong.

Patrick described *The Force Awakens* as having to do three things - feel like *Star Wars* again, introduce new characters we want to follow into future movies, and bridge the 30-year gap between trilogies - and said it did ridiculously well at the first two but only okay at the last, which MauLer still found to generous of a judgment, since the new characters basically had no character and the worldbuilding had been completely deleted to bring back the old status quo. Patrick did say he wished they had gotten into the political landscape of the galaxy, but understood that they wanted to feel familiar and figured we didn't need a Snoke origin movie, with MauLer agreeing that we didn't need a Snoke *movie* but correcting that we needed *something* rather than the nothing we got. Patrick chalked up disappointment with the sequels to people having a lot of demands based on fan theories, raising the question of if people really would have cared that much about theories if the followup movie had actually delivered them something good, since pretty much every big movie will have theories made about it, most of which will end up wrong. He then described how the opening of the movie did what no other movie had done with a Rebel pilot by making Paige Tico the main character (we watched her try to press a button), but figured that the movie's detractors must just not want to see new things. He applauded the additions to the lore that *The Last Jedi* added, like finally explaining what Obi-Wan *really* meant when he said death would make him more powerful than one could imagine, as if achieving life after death wasn't powerful enough, raising the question of why Obi-Wan never summoned lightning after he died if summoning lightning was what he was referring to. Patrick similarly praised *The Last Jedi* for showing how the Galaxy's 1% lived, as if the prequels had not shown the Galaxy's royalty, politicians, and bankers, as well as slaves and slavers. He reminded everyone that *Star Wars* has always been weird, citing various aliens that appeared in the Original Trilogy, as if people were not aware that the space opera had aliens in it. Patrick called the giant alien cow thing that Luke drank milk from one of his favorite additions to the franchise, saying anyone who disliked it had poor taste, leading to a minute of uninterrupted laughter from everyone watching. He continued to defend the Canto Bight sequence against the idea that it contributed nothing since it showed the symbol of the Resistance inspiring hope in the oppressed people of the Galaxy, which MauLer pointed out was bizarre since the Resistance was comprised of the same people who had done nothing to help them for the 30 years they'd been in power. Patrick went on that Finn and Rose's failure was an essential teaching moment for them, even though they hadn't really failed, they'd simply been caught by a robot scanning their robot, which was unavoidable. He then described the joy he'd hoped everyone would feel at seeing rich people have their stuff destroyed, seemingly for no other reason than that they were rich. Appabend began to wonder if this video was a parody, though it was unlikely since Rian Johnson himself had shared it and praised it.

Patrick declared it was time to get serious, causing some relief that what he had said so far had just been jokes, explaining that he'd always taken issue with Leia being Vader's daughter but not using the Force, prompting MauLer to suggest that surely Rey would be the worse of the two, having seemingly endless ability with no source or training, while Leia still had the potential and it could be assumed that she will be trained in the future. Patrick then defended Leia regaining consciousness, breathing in space, and pulling herself back into a spaceship on the grounds that "of course she can use the Force," when her merely using the Force was not the issue. He praised *The Last Jedi* for finally addressing that the Jedi Order sucks, seemingly forgetting that that was the point of the Prequels, and for showing Luke starting his own order and leading to the same outcome, seemingly forgetting that Luke had already defied aspects of the Jedi Order the Original Trilogy.

Patrick expressed no interest in going into how great the character arcs were in the movie because he felt Just Write had already made a great video on the subject, causing MauLer to reminisce about the debate he and Wolf had had with Just Write where he conceded that Holdo was acting nonsensically to drive the plot forward. Just Write had similarly promoted Patrick's plot holes video, because of course. Patrick did proclaim that Kylo was the most interesting character since Yoda though, and MauLer summarized Kylo's journey through the films from innocent kid betrayed by his master, to killiing all the innocent students rather than his master, to being the new Vader, to thinking he might be good, to murdering his dad, to deciding he might be good again, to killing his evil master, to then deciding to still want to kill all the good guys; figuring that people only find him interesting because they fill in the blanks while he just flip-flops on good and evil deeds. Patrick found it odd that people considered Kylo's telling of events to be true, even though the film ended up showing the actual series of events which basically matched what Kylo described, and tried to clarify that the films's message wasn't to end the Jedi, but to take their lessons without the dogmatic lack of attachment, something that Luke had already learned in the Originals before forgetting it again for the sequels. He explained that Yoda literally shows up in the movie to tell you the theme, which MauLer called lazy since the events of the movie itself should be enough to get the theme across to people. Appabend questioned how "failure is the greatest teacher" applied to Rey since she never fails, and MauLer answered that people argue believing in Kylo was a failing, making her biggest flaw being too nice. Patrick was surprised that people could miss a theme that obviously stated, chalking it up to people being too focused on how force fields work, and MauLer corrected that it was because the story itself portrayed that theme poorly, and it takes more than simply having a theme to make something good. Patrick implored people that made up science doesn't matter, even though the films themselves have said that that made up science works differently and have depended on that being so.

Patrick described Finn's arc (wanting to run away, then befriending Rey, then wanting to leave with the goal of protecting his friend Rey, then being called a coward for wanting to leave, then being forced on a quest to save the fleet, then learning from DJ that both sides are powered by th 1% and there is no right team, then learning that he fight for one team because they're right) as the best one and the "Rebel Scum" moment as the best in the movie, which MauLer found ironic since they're not even called Rebels so the payoff falls flat. Patrick, who had previously said he didn't know why people hated this movie, said that he spent a lot of time reading comments from its detractors, and concluded that they've misunderstood Luke for a long time, wanting him to go godmode and obliterate the bad guys effortlessly, which nobody actually wanted. Luke was meant to be complicated, and Patrick argued that therefore having him be a paragon of goodness would be boring, despite that goodness being the result of lessons he learned in his previous films. He described Rey as similarly complicated, which MauLer found funny since Rey literally didn't know why she was involved in the story, which was only bolstered by Patrick bringing up that she jumps from mentor figure to mentor figure, as a result of not having any motivations of her own. He called Kylo offering Rey a place in the world the first time he ever believed that the protagonist might actually join the villain, and that is the mark of good storytelling, without actually saying why that is, what reason Rey would ever have for joining a mass murderer she hates for having murdered her father figure.

Patrick praised The Last Jedi as a rip-roaring good time, as evidenced by multiple characters in the movie saying "woo," bolstering that point by saying the throne room fight "rules so hard" and listing various setpieces throughout the movie. He took an opportunity to jab at Christopher Nolan for having movies that he finds too dour, and argued that *Goodfellas* had jokes in it, and therefore the jokes in *The Last Jedi* are good. He explained that *The Last Jedi* is a movie about moving on, which MauLer agreed is a nice idea, but it was executed poorly, and about moving on from the status quo, despite the end of the movie resetting everything to the status quo of good Jedi vs evil Sith and rebels vs an all-controlling empire. He was happy that *Star Wars* was no longer about being from a certain bloodline, even though they never were in the first place, and praised the look of hope on the inspired child's face at the end of the movie, raising the question of why Luke walking through a door, doing nothing, and then fading away inspired people when him toppling an evil empire didn't. He finished off by listing some small things he liked, like DJ wearing boots around his neck, Krait looking like it's bleeding, and a list of basically every shot with a Porg in it.

Patrick wasn't going to make this video, but couldn't stop thinking about *The Last Jedi* (even though it's a kids' movie), and expressed sorrow that other people couldn't see what he sees, a defense that could be made about just about any movie someone hates. The video ended by zooming in on Patrick's parents, whom everyone had forgotten were in this video, with ominous music for some reason. MauLer brought up how he'd left a comment on the video but it was deleted, but that may have been an issue on YouTube's end rather than Patrick's. In the end card of his video, Patrick preemptively expressed confusion at the idea that people would be upset by his video when all he's done is say he likes a movie, seemingly forgetting that he was no more innocent since he had made a whole video telling people they watch movies wrong.

### On the Fucking Daringness of one JJ Abrams

> “If you are a person who think that SJWs or diversity or feminism ruined this movie, or you’re going to tell me I’m a Disney shill, or if you are going to tell me I should have watched a 5-hour rant by some angry guy on YouTube, or if you think I should kill myself because I liked a movie, everyone should remember - THIS IS A FILM ABOUT SPACE WIZARDS INTENDED FOR CHILDREN”
>
>
> "And if you're too hung up on the made-up science in this fictional world of space wizards to enjoy that, then I weep for you, because one more time - THIS IS A MOVIE ABOUT SPACE WIZARDS INTENDED FOR CHILDREN"
>
>
>
> - Patrick's original words on the subject, EFAP 4
>
>

After the release of *The Rise of Skywalker*, Patrick tweeted out, "JJ Abrams how fucking dare you." This prompted the exact thing one would expect, a swarm of responses parroting his words "This is a movie about space wizards intended for children," back at him. Patrick snapped back at one such responder, "Not what I fucking said dummy," further elaborating that his infamous quote was simply in reference to people who harass people over it. In addition to being oddly specific, since surely harassing people over a movie would be wrong even if it was about ground scientists and made for adults, this was in direct contrast to his original words, which he used in his video as a counter against a wide variety of criticisms of the film, including the accusation that it was motivated by politics, the accusation of him being a shill for Disney, the suggestion that he watch a long review that is critical of it, and being hung up on the fictional science of the universe. Jay tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that perhaps the point about harassment was indeed all he had meant, but advised that in that case he should simply own up to having phrased it very poorly.

### The Return of The Willems

> "Moar *Star Wars* and in the last one we wanna ending"
> - Jay, summarizing Patrick's teachings
>
>

Just about one hundred episodes after their original Willems Double-Feature (it was on EFAPs 2 and 4, so if you guessed it was on 3 then you average out to correct!), MauLer, Rags, Metal, Jay, Theo, and Fringy finally returned to the man himself to hear him ask the question "What Do We Want From a *Star Wars* Movie?" sponsored by Dollar Shave Club. After Rags questioned placement of his modem on the floor despite having furniture to place it on, Patrick recounted how *The Last Jedi* was a commercial and critical success, but to much of the fanbase it was... divisive, which MauLer described as the most softball way of putting it. He made a point of putting on his Skywalker Ranch hat and set out to find out to answer the titular question, which required going outside for some reason. Future black-and-white Patrick interjected to establish that he was going to try to be objective with this video, which MauLer and co were obviously intrigued by, and so got his biases out of the way by giving his rankings of the existing films (*The Rise of Skywalker* and *Solo* were not out yet), which placed V as the best, followed by IV, then VIII, then VI, VII, *Rogue One*, I, II, and placing III at the bottom, the last of which baffled everyone since it seemed unanimous that *Revenge of the Sith* was the best of the prequels.

Part 1 of his video, titled "The Old Days," began with Patrick raising the possibility of the answer being the same as for any movie, for it to be good, but countered that *Star Wars* is more complicated than that, since it is the only one of the top 10 highest-grossing film franchises to not be an adaptation, succeeding without the safety net of source material, simply building onto the previous films in a continuous series, unlike any other film series, to which MauLer asked what about *Alien* and *Predator*, as well as wondering how much not being derivative of any source material even mattered, since *Star Wars* at this point is derivative of itself, adding that they knew more about the plot of *The Rise of Skywalker* than they did about *Avengers Endgame* through leaks. Patrick reminisced about how back in 1977 there was no lore, no episodes, and no Wookieepedia, which was of course true since there couldn't be films before the first film and there was no internet to put a wiki on, but that wouldn't change the fact that people would care about what was established in that film once it was established. The only thing people wanted from a *Star Wars* sequel was more *Star Wars*, as Patrick laid out, and the only thing people wanted from the then-final *Star Wars* film was more *Star Wars* plus an ending, a brilliant insight nobody had considered before. MauLer reminded everyone that Wisecrack disagrees with this analysis, since they argued people only want endless middle. Patrick described how people got just that and everyone was happy, but had to put "(\*GENERALIZATION)" onscreen as he said so, then elaborated that everyone consumed *Star Wars* with no hype or expectations, which was patently wrong since V and VI were still sequels to one of the most popular films ever made and would have had massive hype from that alone. Patrick also walked up to a VHS boxset of the *Star Wars* Original Trilogy he had placed on a beach and picked it up, for some reason.

Part 2 then described what Patrick called "The Long Gap," where there were no more movies and Expanded Universe books began filling in all the gaps in the world, making it possible to know everything there is about *Star Wars*. Then came the changes in the Special Editions, which were almost universally deemed as detrimental, marking the first time where the fans claimed to know better than the creator. The Prequels were also included in the "Long Gap," for some reason, and Patrick breezed through them by summing them up as unnecessary backstory that didn't *feel* like *Star Wars* because all the characters were royalty, politicians, and monks (what about the ones who weren't?), and the CGI made everything "feel less tactile" (which Chat explained with pinching emojis - you can pinch the films) since everything looked too clean, which he demonstrated with a clip of a giant lizard in a cloud of dirt. Patrick concluded that the prequels were bad because they lost the "feeling" of *Star Wars*, and MauLer pointed out that he forgot to put "(\*GENERALIZATION)" onscreen this time.

Patrick labeled Part 3 "The New Era," where Disney bought *Star Wars* and had the goal of *feeling* like *Star Wars* again, and did so by making the protagonists relatable (citation needed) and using more practical effects. He brushed off *Rogue One* and the then-upcoming *Solo* as just feature-length Wookieepedia articles, since all they did was answer small nitpicks... like how the Death Star was destroyed. He then described *The Last Jedi* as feeling like a classic *Star Wars* movie, once again prompting the question of how, but argued that it pushed the story forward in bold new directions. MauLer found it funny that Patrick seemed to be trying so hard to not just say *The Last Jed*i is a masterpiece again, and Theo groaned at the realization that this was just a masquerade to praise *The Last Jedi* again.

Patrick titled Part 4 of his video "The Question," triggering a sigh of relief that he would finally be getting to the actual video. At this point, Fringy joined the call and was caught up on the past 10 minutes, which took about a sentence to do rather than 10 minutes. Patrick himself summarized the "canonization" of the Original Trilogy (an odd phrasing given the trilogy was canon from its inception, since it *was* the franchise at the time) setting up rules, the Expanded Universe giving everything a backstory, the prequels and Special Editions setting up the idea that the filmmakers could be wrong, and concluded that that led to fans considering themselves Star Wars experts (...calm down) who go into new movies with a checklist of ideas rather than just watching to see what happens like they used to, an odd claim to make given he had previously said people had their own expectation for *The Empire Strikes Back*. The gang found it funny that he used the word "dogmatic" to describe wanting a sequel to be in line with the movies it is a sequel to, and "trivia" to refer to anything people cared about from previous movies, reminiscing about Quinton Reviews calling plot, characters, and continuity "fan stuff." MauLer also questioned why allegedly dogmatic fans didn't take similar issue with that "trivia" being different in the prequels, citing Anakin taking longer to learn to be a Jedi than Luke to counter Patrick citing Rey taking shorter. With the benefit of hindsight, MauLer expressed a desire to see Patrick's "How fucking dare you" Tweet placed alongside himself describing dogmatic fans. Patrick figured that what people really wanted from *Star Wars* was the Vader hallway sequence from *Rogue One*, which was just the same thing we'd seen before (no previous film had ever shown Vader killing a room full of soldiers) but shinier, despite having previously described people's dislike of the Special Editions, which were themselves the same thing we'd seen before but shinier.

Then came the obligatory part of the video where Patrick informed people that the Original Trilogy had all the same flaws as the new movies, like Luke becoming a pilot (he was already a pilot) and using the Force to destroy a Death Star in a day (he literally just used it to aim better), Leia contacting Obi-Wan despite having never met him before (he was a friend of her father's, a Jedi, and a war hero), Yoda being hyped up as a wise teacher but actually being a silly muppet (Yoda was putting on an act), the Falcon chase lasting a couple days while Luke's training seemingly lasts weeks (the word "seemingly" doing a lot of heavy lifting), new Force powers like telekinesis and lighting being introduced out of the blue (Vader used telekinesis in the first film to strangle someone and it's not that far-fetched that an old learned Dark Side user would have powers other people don't), the opening act of *Return of the Jedi* having no impact on the story besides getting Han back (,,, it got Han back), most of the climactic end of the war being spent on silly Ewok antics (those came before the finale, which consisted of a more serious ground battle with the Ewoks alongside a space battle and a swordfight), Leia being Luke's sister being an obvious late addition (which was still far better than flip-flopping on Rey's parentage before settling on a surprise Palpatine), another Death Star being built (of course they'd build another Death Star, it was what they were using to suppress resistance and they'd already dropped the facade of democracy with the first Death Star), the "there is another" line not being paid off with Leia confronting Vader (she didn't have to, the line was meant to give the impression that Luke could conceivably die, but since he succeeded they didn't have to turn to Leia), and there were a lot of jokes (but those ones were actually funny though).

Patrick said that he could have made this video just a 15-minute screenshot of Pablo Hidalgo tweeting "I often think about how lucky we all were that the best stuff came out when we were the most impressionable," which wasn't the case, since the tweet already had MauLer and Fringy ambivalent on whether he was sincerely expressing gratitude that good things came out when he was growing up or if he was being sarcastic like Patrick was implying. Patrick assured people who hated *The Last Jedi* that they were not watching movies wrong since that's not possible, contradicting the previous Patrick Willems Lore, but that they are expecting something they can never get, since the only way to recapture the feeling you had watching *Star Wars* as a child would be to time-travel VHSs of the sequels back to yourself so you can experience them without hype or expectations, even though he had previously said that *The Force Awakens* had successfully recaptured the feeling of the original films.

At the sight of the title card that read "Part 5 - Conclusion," Rags asked if they had skipped forward in the video, because there was no way that could be all he had to say on a topic he had apparently been thinking about for months. Patrick repeated the original question and concluded that "I think that's a question worth asking ourselves," confirming MauLer's prediction that this video would be a Secret of Mario's Jump. He informed everyone that like it or not, the story of *Star Wars* is going to keep on going (unless it stops making Disney money), but argued that it can't just be the same things we'd seen before, despite having previously said *The Force Awakens* managed to feel like *Star Wars* through showing us what we'd seen before. He loved *The Last Jedi* because it gave him what he wanted and what he didn't know he wanted, and opened up the possibility for countless new stories, once again raising the question of what possibilities. With inspirational marathon-running music swelling in the background, Patrick said that just like how people had their reasons for liking the previous films, citing strong female characters like... Rose as the reason people loved the sequels, people will like the new movies too. With the video over, MauLer commented on how it had retroactively become part 1 of 2, since the release of *The Rise of Skywalker* prompted Patrick to make...

### What Do We Want From a Star Wars Movie? (2020)

The Return of Willems continued into EFAP 104, where the same roster minus Fringy and plus Weekend took a look at the second part of his "What Do We Want from a Star Wars Movie?" series, filmed after JJ Abrams fucking dared to make *The Rise of Skywalker*.

see how the release of *The Rise of Skywalker* had shifted his perspective on the sequels - Book Look - The Rise of Skywalker let him down. Went down the path he could not follow - Things he will miss about Star Wars: The Williams score, that makes him always feel like the movie is going to be good, new puppet alien that characters act like its normal thing in the universe, wookiee sound, jump to light-speed visual, other sound effects (they are best cinema sounds) - He felt optimistic and happy about the series with The Last Jedi, fandom split into factions, he even made (shitty) video of how the relationship between movie and fans could change so much. - He is going to back to the start to find what changed. - Thinks that people see his love for Last Jedi a deal breaker. If you can't handle it, stop watching his video as he wont stop talking about his love for TLJ. You can found your hating opinion from somewhere else in YouTube. - The Last Jedi was movie he didn't know he wanted until he saw it, as it gave him what he wanted from Star Wars movie, spaceships, fights, puppets, his favorite characters and goofy aliens, but it didn't recycle the past, it brought new perspective for Star Warses future, what it could be and do. - The movie left the series in new place it has never been before. - Kylo is complex character and Rey moves beyond the "old fashion ways of the Jedi" (that Luke had apparently not already moved on from) - Force was democratized (which it was already) so everyone can be special and he was into it. - Then Solo came and he didn't like it as much as it didn't do anything new, but it looked good visually, so it was fine in his book look. Although it could have been done as comic book or novel. It just shows that series is more interested in filling out wiki entries than making stories - He likes that the movie failed, as not there wont be other prequel movies that will be just wookipedia entries - He is baffled that people like Mandalorian or that its maker is wanted to make movies. In truth he is not, as the show seems to give people what they want: space western with new world and bad guys to fight. Characters and world are just old stuff with new paint, like Mandalorian is just Boba Fett, so like Solo, its just Wikipedia page or another Vader Hallway scene. Its just easily digestible comfort-food. - If you like Rise of Skywalker, good for you, he is jealous of your ability to do so. Star Wars is not for him anymore. - Story is subpar and its all plot, it ha no new ideas and nothing to say and it just uses previous movie elements. Previous movie ended with new status que but the TROS goes back to the Force Awakens dynamic. Palpatine survived,( but its just movie about space wizards, so it doesent matter) is a plot hole, but not sine happened off screen, we have to understand that he traveled from point a to point b off screen. - Beyond the nostalgia imagery, the movie is worthless and central idea of not being defined by family makes no sense since Rey end alone in desert planet - movie is not about characters or ideas, only about star wars. its recycling itself, like a centipede cloaked in jedi robes. - He wants to see episode 9 Colin Trevorrow version instead, it does new things, like having Fin make Stormtrooper uprising and Kylo stay as the big bad, but the star wars is more content for now on to just recycle the past. - Now that he doesn't agree with the choices in the trilogy, he sees that his relation ship with the franchise has changed. he is going to ignore Rise of Skywalker being part of the canon and never watch the movie again. - Goes into weird tangent of how he wont be hater that harasses people and fights people how TROS is bad, as "its unhealthy and shitty thing to do" - Maybe one day star wars will be as good as it used to be and have things he likes. - Thinks star wars writing is bad now, so he promotes skillshare star wars creator as good person that you can learn about writing.

### on R-Rated Superheroes

> "I'm a 33-year-old straight white man who likes nerdy shit, pretty much the majority of the media these days, especially comic books and comic book adaptations, is aimed directly at me, and that's not good, I don't need it all. I want new generations to to enjoy stuff the same way I did. And who the fuck are we kidding? There's stuff made for kids like *Batman The Animated Series*, it totally rules. So why would anyone act like that's a bad thing?"
>
>

It did not take another two years for Patrick to pop up again, as MauLer, Rags, Sitch, Adam, and Nerdrotic took a look at his video "What's the Point of R-Rated Superheroes?" in EFAP 125.

Gives out of context opening related to his other videos, confusing the first time watcher - Wears jacket with far shorter sleeves than his shirts sleeves while he opening monologue mimics Rorschach. - exaggerates that the current R.Rated movies are overly gory, using Joker shooting man in the head, even thought the movie has not gratuitous violence. - Comments how nowadays there is too much R-rated movies, even movies based on older animated shows are R-rated. Studios see that people like violence,s o they make more movies with superheroes ripping one another into pieces. - Takes a moment to say he is not against R-rated superhero movies and he is not a fake nerd as he does know the source material and has been reading comics for a long time (trying to prove his nerd cred by saying he wore batman shirt when he was a kid as his first example and not that he owns graphic novels), while trying to be artsy with camera and swinging his arms around. He is bitter about the fact that people would accuse him of not understanding comics. - In order to understand the point of the R-rated superhero movies, Patrick goes back to when comics were first made in 1930s, proving that comics were originally for children but then adults began to read them. - Then commenting how Jack, Stan And Steve revolutionized comics by making comics kid-friendly with adult elements, like how Fantastic Four The Thing hates that he is a rock monster and has other issues. So they had gritty things but where still made for younger audience. - Then he say "You know what, that's okay" like there was some kind of issue, just so he could slip in "space wizard intended for children" by saying that comics were for kids like Star Wars, which is okay - He clarifies that he wants to talk about media made for children with adults in mind, not exclusively for children, like Dora the Explora. - To find how the more grittier side came, he contacted the creator of the Punisher, Gerry Conway, who says it happened because the creators and the audience ere older, so they started to make things related to their age, like alcoholism and loss of a love one, bu that is kind of self destructive, as if they go too old, then children wont read them and they loose part of the demographic, so the more adult stuff should be made separate, so that when you grew out of the normal comic you can go to the more adult comics. - Movie makers make the superhero movies not for the kids anymore by making them R-rated. Lot of R-rated stuff is most likely Hollywood following a trend of R-Rated stuff because Logan and Deadpool succeeded, misunderstanding that they were good because how they were made, not just because they were R-rated. He fears that there will not be any more superhero movies made for kids anymore as they will all be R-rated. Its not bad if the material made is good, but they are going away from their targeted demographic and not making new things for that demographic. - Indisputable fact is that people want R-rated superhero movies, most notably the next batman movie to be R-rated. - He presumes that the main reason they want R-rated things is because the violence, in order to indulge in it since its wrong to and he himself is against violence (except when its against people he labels as nazis, he slips that in nicely). - He understands how people would want more violence in their movies, he was 13 once. But then he got older and understood how absurd and pointless the R-rated violence would be in something like Lord Of the Rings. - The superhero movies are power fantasies, so he understands why people wants to see them rip people apart. Fictional violence can be cool and fun. But he ask what does that accomplice beyond being more brutal? that just makes the power-fantasy more sadistic if you have blood coming out of person when Batman hits them in the head. How film conveys something with its shots can make the violence sexy or disturbing and the superheroes are going more towards the cool and sexy approach, just to make them hardcore and not to make them nuanced. - Then he goes to deconstruction, where comic of Watchmen didn't treat the violence as glamorous or cool, the movie did. he says violence is sexy when Nite Owl breaks persons arm and blood spurts out and bones are sticking out. - Says Snyder falls into this, *Batman V Superman* trying to say that violence is wrong but likes to make stylized violence. - Thinks The Boys depicts opposite, showing things from normal peoples view, saying that the violence superheroes do is not cool but terrifying. He picks scenes where that is the case but glasses over when the violence is gratuitous. - Sees the comic that everyone that's been ripping of for violent superhero deconstruction is Miracleman, commenting on how it deconstructed violence in Superheroes, not presenting them as cool but brutal and scary to normal people. - He brings up that the gritty and violent superheroes will replace the normal once and is the impossible to give the comics or movie to kids with these violent versions. Its moronic to make characters that appear in the kids lunchboxes a violent killers, especially if they are originally presented as kid friendly as Mickey Mouse. They should make new characters and make them rapist and killers and not the old characters. But you can make violent and gritty things withhold that IP if its not mainline story and not canon but a alternate universe version. - *The Killing Joke* might be good, but Alan Moore does not like it anymore. Then again, Alan more likes it when Batman is not that serious, so he is against R-Rated superheros and would not approve of violent superhero movies on principle. He also is against superheros for adult, as he thinks realistic versions of something made for children is grotesque. - Patrick agree with Allan, not to same extend, but is willing to agree with him. He loves comic book heroes, but they are silly and no matter how realistic you make them, they are going to be silly at heart. - Gerry Conway says that Stan Lees, Jack Kirbys and Steve Ditkos comics were not adult but silly. - Goes to talking about characters trying to be serious, but what they do is really silly and childish, like Robin saying "fuck batman", but doesent realize that people don't think this as adult, just cringe and edgy, which he translates to the medium being embarrassed of being silly, like a moody preteen painting skull and flames to look cool, when comics are silly a their core. - He then comments how he wanted since childhood that comic books would be treated seriously, but things like rape and gratuitous violence keeps them from being viewed as such. he as sixteen thought it was awesome, but now he sees it as grouse. - Good ways to do R-rated movies on superheroes in his opinion is by doing it like Deadpool by leaning on the silliness to the point of parody and Logan by leaning on realism to the point where there is no iconography of comic books and the movie is more western genre. - he predicts that people are going to call him a hypocrite since he said that TLJ was good because it wasen't like the other Starwars movies because Ryan Johnson was allowed lot of creative freedom to make his favorite movie in he franchise. But in truth the video is not about limiting the creators but for us, as we should not make the characters grow up with us and be out of children's reach, since its not for adults but intended for children. TLJ was more grown up but intended for children, so should the superhero movies. - Adults now want new things based on old thing to be catered to them, like having Scrooge McDuck snort cocaine in Ducktales and South Park version to be Mickie Mouse to be canonical one. - If you want R-rated movies, go watch ones not based on superheroes but have some similarities. - Don't turn something meant for children into gritty and adult, it can have adult elements, but it has still be for the original audience. - You should innovate and evolve the genre, but not in the ways Patrick won't like - he concludes that its because these these r rated movies that "Dudes" throw fits when comics about batman attending high-school comes out or when Wonder Woman is drawn as overweight in comic book cover. Those were not made for them. -

## Powers and Abilities

> "A drunk goblin puts coins in BB-8 and that rules"
>
>

* **Film Degree** - Patrick is perhaps the most educated of all of EFAP's foes, his film degree acting as a symbol of his superior intellect which is able to disprove the very concept of logic itself [EFAP 2]
	+ He can also use this to create *artistic* transitions and camera angles to show of his vast knowledge of filmmaking

* **What-about-tism** - Patrick can defeat any criticism of a movie he likes by reminding you that the original *Star Wars* had strange-looking creatures in it
* **Pat-retreat** - Patrick's signature turtleneck allows him to retract his head and limbs much like an actual turtle, protecting him from danger
* **Episode Eight-Faced** - Because he is white, Patrick is obligated to disagree with himself, thus allowing him to hold multiple contradicting viewpoints at once [EFAP 2]
* **Vulture Wings** - Patrick has shown the ability to sprout large mechanical wings a la the Vulture from Spider-Man.

## Trivia

> "I also loved the fish nuns and the hell mouth where the movie goes all David Lynch and those crazy things hanging out on Canto Bight"
>
>

* Patrick is less cool than Jason Statham, but that doesn't mean he can't be cool (EFAP 2)
* His hairline recedes every time he shows up.
* He drinks skim milk, which he keeps in his bedroom, because he's disgusting (EFAP 2)
* He doesn't like Christopher Nolan due to his superior tastes.
* Patrick Williams is the left-wing version of Paul Joseph Watson, as they both make theories without logical proof
* He has the graphic novel where you can clearly see Batman's dick (EFAP 125)
* Thinks Harley Quinn animated show is good and Birds of Prey is "pretty solid"
* thinks Batman the Animated Series is the best version of Batman
* he is terrified in woods, as he is not in his element in nature
* Likes *Wickerman* because it has a large strawman
* uses the word “real” a lot
* He gets a picture of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, but then writes "Not pictured: Steve Ditko" instead of getting a picture of Ditko.
* does not want to his views repeated back to him and likes to hear different perspectives
* Rex Read, that guy sucks
* He hates CinemaSins, and will take any opportunity to tell you
* Wolf has suggested that he should shave his head completely rather than let his hair thin, something Wolf himself did.
* stands outside the movie theater and tells people how invested they should be in the movie, counting the investment 1 to 10 scale
* It has been theorized due to the way he dresses that he is a vampire, but rather than suck blood, he sucks all the joy out of the room he is in.
* his parent restricted his access to PornHub so he only has the alien cow to look at
* Fish nuns were angry at Luke for burning the temple “I didn’t do it, the ghost puppet did”
* Patrick killed Wolf
* he has a "five head" instead of forehead
* has bizarre liking to porgs “The porgs are great”,
* has intern and mother might be Irish, makes videos of talking to his parents
* Patrick wears sunglasses inside his house
* Wolf has gone to great lengths to find out if Barriers Tea, the brand Patrick drinks, has soy in it, but results have been inconclusive. MauLer has held firm that Pepsi has soy in it though [EFAP 4]
* style includes switching filming locations, from studio to street to alley
* Patrick has evolved as a critic [EFAP 2]
* uses toy hulk fists to punch people say something he disagrees with. doesn’t know if punching people that say something wrong (in his opinion) is too aggressive.
* hair looks like a Jewish hat
* might think that sex, drugs and gore are required for adult film
* Patrick swears in front of his parents when talking about *The Last Jedi*, even though it's just a space movie for children.
* He actually, literally, truly, legitimately likes everything in *The Last Jedi*.

## Quotes

* “All those plot holes that people care about, don’t actually matter” - EFAP 2
	+ "Okay, some of these can be valid complaints" - Patrick, minutes later
* "Look here ya bean-headed fuck" - Wolf, EFAP 2
* "Goddamn stupid... bean-headed-lookin ass, Nostalgia Critic ripoff" - Wolf, EFAP 2
* "The chat on the stream, it's like off center, like there's a lot being cut off on the actual screen"
"That's just a nitpick"
- Wolf and Rags, applying Patrick's teachings, EFAP 2
* "I saw one guy say he'd made a list of forty-one plot holes in that movie"
"Forty-one? That's weaksauce."
- Patrick and MauLer, EFAP 2
* "Can you answer me a question?... because I'm really afraid to know the answer but I feel like I have to"
"'Why is he in an alley?'"
"Well, that is a question. but-"
"I assume that he walked there in between scenes"
- Wolf and Rags, EFAP 2
* “No one seems to know what an actual plot hole is.” - Patrick, EFAP 2
	+ “People's definitions vary” - Patrick, minutes later
* "Movies tend to assume that the audience is reasonably intelligent... but I guess they're wrong" - EFAP 2
* "And you know what human beings are not? Logical. People are impulsive, they make choices based on emotion"
"What exactly would the choice have been to not go to the river that was emotional?"
"They're lazy."
- Patrick, MauLer, and Fortea, EFAP 2
* “Remember that guy in your freshman dorm who tried to guess the endings of movies so he could prove that he was smarter than people who made them, now everyone is turning into that guy.” - Patrick, working out some long-dormant jealousy issues over an unnamed and likely more intelligent classmate
* "Stop this stream about this hack and go to Jared" - FoxDream in Chat, EFAP 2
* “You can find plot holes or logic gaps in any movie, and if you want to, go right ahead. Just don’t tell me that those are genuine flaws and problems and reasons why movie is bad. Because they are not. None of these things actually matter” - EFAP 2
* “For some reason whole lot of people don’t like this movie, a lot of people are really angry about it.” - Patrick attempting to dissemble ignorance towards people's issues with TLJ
* “I think this movie is goddamn incredible, its easily the best *Star Wars* movie since *Empire Strikes Back*” - EFAP 4
* "The giant alien cow thing that Luke milks is one of my favorite additions to this-"
[one uninterrupted minute of uncontrollable laughter]
- Patrick, and MauLer, Wolf, and Appabend, EFAP 4
* “Watching rich people getting their shit destroyed is one of the purest pleasures in cinema and if you can’t appreciate that, I feel sorry for you.” -Patrick demonstrating a lack of empathy
* “So, one side of the emotions is okay, but the other side isn’t? That doesn’t seem very consistent. It looks like you're just policing people about how they should feel... Telling humans how much they should care about something, historically doesn’t work very well, like, humans don’t like it.” - Mauler, EFAP 4
* “We are not talking about gun control here, we are talking about a movie about space wizards intended for children." - Patrick informing the viewer, much like one would a child who enjoys movies about space wizards, that he is indeed not speaking of firearm regulations
* “A lot of people had a lot of demands for this movie, explanations and answers and confirmations of fan theories, and look, I made a whole movie about that. But personally, those weren’t really my top priorities, I just wanted something new, I didn’t want another beat for beat repeat of the original trilogy, I wanted Star Wars to surprise me, to expand the scope of what Star Wars movie could be and also, of course, I wanted a rip-roaring good time. That is exactly what I got.”- Patrick atop his soap box explaining to the plebians that TLJ is good because it subverted the audience's expectations right into a garbage heap
* “And Porgs are popping up everywhere and Phasma has a sweet spear-"-Patrick explaining the plot of TLJ while doing his best impression of a child watching a movie intended for them about space wizards
* “Humor is good, why am I even explaining this?” - Patrick generalizing about abstract concepts while avoiding the fact that tonal whiplash plagues TLJ
* “This is a movie about moving on. Moving on from failures and selfishness and self loathing and empty heroics. Moving on from only certain families being special and everything being same as 30 years ago. Moving on from same old story beats and same old status quo.” - Patrick accidentally explaining why TLJ is the worst Star Wars cinematic event to occur
* “This is a weird movie to talk about. This video ended up being longer than it should need to be, because its not enough to say why the movie is good. I also have to preemptively respond to all people who are going to say, “Why didn’t you talk about this thing that’s bad?” Months ago I said there is no way I would make this video, but the truth is that since December, I haven’t stopped thinking about The Last Jedi and all the people who hate it. I wish that you could see what I see, because it’s pretty great."-Patrick using obfuscation tactics to excuse why he's making a video just to declare his love for alien sea cows
* “Oh yeah, Canto Bight, you know, that section of the move that people say nothing happens and should just be entirely cut out of the movie. I could spend several minutes here talking about how it’s important that we see oppressed people in the galaxy and the hope that the Resistance symbol inspires, I could talk about how the failure here is caused by Poe and Finn are essential teaching moments in both of their arcs.” - Patrick nimbly dodging any real justification for his love of the Canto Bight scene in TLJ
* "Movies are not math"
"What about *Good Will Hunting*?"
- Patrick and MauLer, EFAP 2
* "We don't need to let the past die, but to accept that there is a future as well"
* "I am a adult, and these are movies about space children intended for children"
* "In Douglas Martin's obituary for Roger Ebert in the New York Times, he wrote, 'Not only did he advise moviegoers about what to see, but also how to think about what they saw.'"
"If somebody wrote that about my obituary, I would Force Ghost Lightning them"
- Patrick and Rags, EFAP 2
* "Feelings are always valid, because all that feelings require to be valid is that you felt them, and no one can prove that you didn't, so they're always valid. I say that from a logical perspective because what are you gonna do? Tell someone they don't feel the way they do? It's like yeah, how are you gonna prove that?" - MauLer, EFAP 2
* "Movies are not math" - Purple Bilbo Baggins, EFAP 2
* "Ha he's pretending to read!" - Rags, upon seeing Patrick holding a book, EFAP 2
* "Don't subscribe to Patrick Willems" - Bilbo Baggins, EFAP 2
* "So he *has* furniture to put the modem on" - Rags, EFAP 103
* "Canon was not invented until Dr Canon made it in 1896" - The Laughing Cavalier in Chat, applying Patrick's teachings, EFAP 103
* "Everyone was happy (\*generalization)" - EFAP 103
* "Okay, I've gone through forty years of history"
"in ten minutes"
- Patrick and MauLer, EFAP 103
* "They don't like the speed at which Rey's skills grow"
"What, you mean binary?"
- Patrick and MauLer, EFAP 103
* "He's not a silly muppet, that was an act, you fuckin asshole!" - Rags, defending Yoda, EFAP 103
* "I often think about how lucky we all were that the best stuff came out when we were the most impressionable" - Pablo Hidalgo, saying something that Patrick may or may not agree with, EFAP 103
* "So what do we want from a Star Wars movie? I think that's a question worth asking ourselves" - ~~Mark Brown~~ Patrick Willems, EFAP 103
* What Top 5 Are You Smoking On Kendrick

## References

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 EFAP #2 - "SHUT UP ABOUT PLOT HOLES" and "We need to talk about Film Criticism"
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `:0`
This article couldn't have been possible without Sennheiser.