Not Chuck, but well worth watching.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well I watched Patrick Willems's Last Jedi video, and I'm a bit at odds with something Maul's video was saying. There's two scenes where Willems holds up a sign that reminds us that these are kids movies. That's contrasted with him saying that they're super great (and why). Maul's video's point there I believe was about hiding behind subjectivism to shield one's points from all criticism. Every point he makes about that in terms of principle is distinctively important, though it's obviously important to get a sense of the context of the videos he brings up for cited examples. I'm familiar with a good deal of these "left" producers and their self-aware approaches to handling conventional criticism that goes towards both these movies and their videos in particular. When Patrick Willems says that Star Wars is the absolute best, I only get the sense that he's talking with a bit of intended hyperbole. He holds up the aforementioned sign twice, and the first time he posits, "if you are a person that thinks that SJWs or diversity or feminism ruined this movie. Or if you're going to tell me that I'm a Disney Schill. Or if you're going to tell me to watch a 5-hour rant by some angry guy on YT. Or if you think I should kill myself because I liked a movie..." then proceeds to hold up the sign. That's not a shield of criticism in the form of subjectivism trigger warning, that's a disclaimer weeding out trolls. That's not really a suitable example to be used about hiding behind subjectivism.

Maul's video he brings it up at 40.25
The Willems scene is at 1.40 near the beginning.

Those "Trolls" are critics. The argument still applies.

Not really, they aren't. Anti-SJW rhetoric is societal reactionism. You can put an SJW robot in Solo, and people can criticize the implementation of it in the landscape of the film. Though no respectful critic is going to resort to talking in terms of SJWs. Social activism has literally always had a place in art, and the people that employ anti-SJW rhetoric aren't talking about how well it's implemented into a story, just the fact that it's there. It verges very easily into trolling in "comment sections," and not exactly Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics. Diversity and Feminism as objects for legitimate criticism are more ridiculous.

And that's pretty much it. If you're going to tell me that that last part of the quoted text constitutes as criticism and is not completely deplorable, then I'm pretty straight on what I said. It's clear that Willems was addressing trolls.

[Karha of Honor]

Well I watched Patrick Willems's Last Jedi video, and I'm a bit at odds with something Maul's video was saying. There's two scenes where Willems holds up a sign that reminds us that these are kids movies. That's contrasted with him saying that they're super great (and why). Maul's video's point there I believe was about hiding behind subjectivism to shield one's points from all criticism. Every point he makes about that in terms of principle is distinctively important, though it's obviously important to get a sense of the context of the videos he brings up for cited examples. I'm familiar with a good deal of these "left" producers and their self-aware approaches to handling conventional criticism that goes towards both these movies and their videos in particular. When Patrick Willems says that Star Wars is the absolute best, I only get the sense that he's talking with a bit of intended hyperbole. He holds up the aforementioned sign twice, and the first time he posits, "if you are a person that thinks that SJWs or diversity or feminism ruined this movie. Or if you're going to tell me that I'm a Disney Schill. Or if you're going to tell me to watch a 5-hour rant by some angry guy on YT. Or if you think I should kill myself because I liked a movie..." then proceeds to hold up the sign. That's not a shield of criticism in the form of subjectivism trigger warning, that's a disclaimer weeding out trolls. That's not really a suitable example to be used about hiding behind subjectivism.

Maul's video he brings it up at 40.25
The Willems scene is at 1.40 near the beginning.

Those "Trolls" are critics. The argument still applies.

Not really, they aren't. Anti-SJW rhetoric is societal reactionism. You can put an SJW robot in Solo, and people can criticize the implementation of it in the landscape of the film. Though no respectful critic is going to resort to talking in terms of SJWs. Social activism has literally always had a place in art, and the people that employ anti-SJW rhetoric aren't talking about how well it's implemented into a story, just the fact that it's there. It verges very easily into trolling in "comment sections," and not exactly Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics. Diversity and Feminism as objects for legitimate criticism are more ridiculous.

And that's pretty much it. If you're going to tell me that that last part of the quoted text constitutes as criticism and is not completely deplorable, then I'm pretty straight on what I said. It's clear that Willems was addressing trolls.

Rotten Tomatoes top ccritics can fuck off. Movies would be just fine withoiut RT.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well I watched Patrick Willems's Last Jedi video, and I'm a bit at odds with something Maul's video was saying. There's two scenes where Willems holds up a sign that reminds us that these are kids movies. That's contrasted with him saying that they're super great (and why). Maul's video's point there I believe was about hiding behind subjectivism to shield one's points from all criticism. Every point he makes about that in terms of principle is distinctively important, though it's obviously important to get a sense of the context of the videos he brings up for cited examples. I'm familiar with a good deal of these "left" producers and their self-aware approaches to handling conventional criticism that goes towards both these movies and their videos in particular. When Patrick Willems says that Star Wars is the absolute best, I only get the sense that he's talking with a bit of intended hyperbole. He holds up the aforementioned sign twice, and the first time he posits, "if you are a person that thinks that SJWs or diversity or feminism ruined this movie. Or if you're going to tell me that I'm a Disney Schill. Or if you're going to tell me to watch a 5-hour rant by some angry guy on YT. Or if you think I should kill myself because I liked a movie..." then proceeds to hold up the sign. That's not a shield of criticism in the form of subjectivism trigger warning, that's a disclaimer weeding out trolls. That's not really a suitable example to be used about hiding behind subjectivism.

Maul's video he brings it up at 40.25
The Willems scene is at 1.40 near the beginning.

Those "Trolls" are critics. The argument still applies.

Not really, they aren't. Anti-SJW rhetoric is societal reactionism. You can put an SJW robot in Solo, and people can criticize the implementation of it in the landscape of the film. Though no respectful critic is going to resort to talking in terms of SJWs. Social activism has literally always had a place in art, and the people that employ anti-SJW rhetoric aren't talking about how well it's implemented into a story, just the fact that it's there. It verges very easily into trolling in "comment sections," and not exactly Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics. Diversity and Feminism as objects for legitimate criticism are more ridiculous.

And that's pretty much it. If you're going to tell me that that last part of the quoted text constitutes as criticism and is not completely deplorable, then I'm pretty straight on what I said. It's clear that Willems was addressing trolls.

Rotten Tomatoes top ccritics can fuck off. Movies would be just fine withoiut RT.

Even Chris Stuckmann though?

[Karha of Honor]

Well I watched Patrick Willems's Last Jedi video, and I'm a bit at odds with something Maul's video was saying. There's two scenes where Willems holds up a sign that reminds us that these are kids movies. That's contrasted with him saying that they're super great (and why). Maul's video's point there I believe was about hiding behind subjectivism to shield one's points from all criticism. Every point he makes about that in terms of principle is distinctively important, though it's obviously important to get a sense of the context of the videos he brings up for cited examples. I'm familiar with a good deal of these "left" producers and their self-aware approaches to handling conventional criticism that goes towards both these movies and their videos in particular. When Patrick Willems says that Star Wars is the absolute best, I only get the sense that he's talking with a bit of intended hyperbole. He holds up the aforementioned sign twice, and the first time he posits, "if you are a person that thinks that SJWs or diversity or feminism ruined this movie. Or if you're going to tell me that I'm a Disney Schill. Or if you're going to tell me to watch a 5-hour rant by some angry guy on YT. Or if you think I should kill myself because I liked a movie..." then proceeds to hold up the sign. That's not a shield of criticism in the form of subjectivism trigger warning, that's a disclaimer weeding out trolls. That's not really a suitable example to be used about hiding behind subjectivism.

Maul's video he brings it up at 40.25
The Willems scene is at 1.40 near the beginning.

Those "Trolls" are critics. The argument still applies.

Not really, they aren't. Anti-SJW rhetoric is societal reactionism. You can put an SJW robot in Solo, and people can criticize the implementation of it in the landscape of the film. Though no respectful critic is going to resort to talking in terms of SJWs. Social activism has literally always had a place in art, and the people that employ anti-SJW rhetoric aren't talking about how well it's implemented into a story, just the fact that it's there. It verges very easily into trolling in "comment sections," and not exactly Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics. Diversity and Feminism as objects for legitimate criticism are more ridiculous.

And that's pretty much it. If you're going to tell me that that last part of the quoted text constitutes as criticism and is not completely deplorable, then I'm pretty straight on what I said. It's clear that Willems was addressing trolls.

Rotten Tomatoes top ccritics can fuck off. Movies would be just fine withoiut RT.

Even Chris Stuckmann though?

I did not watch that much of him recently. I think we would be fine without RT.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well I watched Patrick Willems's Last Jedi video, and I'm a bit at odds with something Maul's video was saying. There's two scenes where Willems holds up a sign that reminds us that these are kids movies. That's contrasted with him saying that they're super great (and why). Maul's video's point there I believe was about hiding behind subjectivism to shield one's points from all criticism. Every point he makes about that in terms of principle is distinctively important, though it's obviously important to get a sense of the context of the videos he brings up for cited examples. I'm familiar with a good deal of these "left" producers and their self-aware approaches to handling conventional criticism that goes towards both these movies and their videos in particular. When Patrick Willems says that Star Wars is the absolute best, I only get the sense that he's talking with a bit of intended hyperbole. He holds up the aforementioned sign twice, and the first time he posits, "if you are a person that thinks that SJWs or diversity or feminism ruined this movie. Or if you're going to tell me that I'm a Disney Schill. Or if you're going to tell me to watch a 5-hour rant by some angry guy on YT. Or if you think I should kill myself because I liked a movie..." then proceeds to hold up the sign. That's not a shield of criticism in the form of subjectivism trigger warning, that's a disclaimer weeding out trolls. That's not really a suitable example to be used about hiding behind subjectivism.

Maul's video he brings it up at 40.25
The Willems scene is at 1.40 near the beginning.

Those "Trolls" are critics. The argument still applies.

Not really, they aren't. Anti-SJW rhetoric is societal reactionism. You can put an SJW robot in Solo, and people can criticize the implementation of it in the landscape of the film. Though no respectful critic is going to resort to talking in terms of SJWs. Social activism has literally always had a place in art, and the people that employ anti-SJW rhetoric aren't talking about how well it's implemented into a story, just the fact that it's there. It verges very easily into trolling in "comment sections," and not exactly Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics. Diversity and Feminism as objects for legitimate criticism are more ridiculous.

And that's pretty much it. If you're going to tell me that that last part of the quoted text constitutes as criticism and is not completely deplorable, then I'm pretty straight on what I said. It's clear that Willems was addressing trolls.

Rotten Tomatoes top ccritics can fuck off. Movies would be just fine withoiut RT.

Even Chris Stuckmann though?

I did not watch that much of him recently. I think we would be fine without RT.

Yeah well my point about disregarding trolls still stands.

[Antiboyscout]

Not really, they aren't. Anti-SJW rhetoric is societal reactionism. You can put an SJW robot in Solo, and people can criticize the implementation of it in the landscape of the film. Though no respectful critic is going to resort to talking in terms of SJWs. Social activism has literally always had a place in art, and the people that employ anti-SJW rhetoric aren't talking about how well it's implemented into a story, just the fact that it's there. It verges very easily into trolling in "comment sections," and not exactly Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics. Diversity and Feminism as objects for legitimate criticism are more ridiculous.

And that's pretty much it. If you're going to tell me that that last part of the quoted text constitutes as criticism and is not completely deplorable, then I'm pretty straight on what I said. It's clear that Willems was addressing trolls.

People complain about an out of place character that makes no sense? Parish the thought.

You don't get to determine what a "respectable" critic is. As Patrick shows, even someone having a film degree does not mean they will give quality critic.

Is it simply the term SJW that determines "bad" critic or does it include the ideology that surrounds it, because those critics on Rotten Tomatoes are just as guilty of indulging in the ideology, from the other side of course.

The complaint has always been how politics is implemented in media. The fact that it is forced, the fact that it demands characters and plot bend to its benefit and not the other way around, that is the problem.

Bad criticism is still criticism. Deflecting it by simply saying "it's a kids movie" instead of addressing what is wrong with the criticism is the point. Worse, is Patrick propping up a strawman of those arguments and not addressing better criticism. He did simply brush off Mauler as an "angry man". Is Mauler "just a troll"?

If you bash Macintosh's praise of the film the same way you bash those "sexist trolls" I will believe you.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Not really, they aren't. Anti-SJW rhetoric is societal reactionism. You can put an SJW robot in Solo, and people can criticize the implementation of it in the landscape of the film. Though no respectful critic is going to resort to talking in terms of SJWs. Social activism has literally always had a place in art, and the people that employ anti-SJW rhetoric aren't talking about how well it's implemented into a story, just the fact that it's there. It verges very easily into trolling in "comment sections," and not exactly Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics. Diversity and Feminism as objects for legitimate criticism are more ridiculous.

And that's pretty much it. If you're going to tell me that that last part of the quoted text constitutes as criticism and is not completely deplorable, then I'm pretty straight on what I said. It's clear that Willems was addressing trolls.

People complain about an out of place character that makes no sense? Parish the thought.

You don't get to determine what a "respectable" critic is. As Patrick shows, even someone having a film degree does not mean they will give quality critic.

Is it simply the term SJW that determines "bad" critic or does it include the ideology that surrounds it, because those critics on Rotten Tomatoes are just as guilty of indulging in the ideology, from the other side of course.

The complaint has always been how politics is implemented in media. The fact that it is forced, the fact that it demands characters and plot bend to its benefit and not the other way around, that is the problem.

Bad criticism is still criticism. Deflecting it by simply saying "it's a kids movie" instead of addressing what is wrong with the criticism is the point. Worse, is Patrick propping up a strawman of those arguments and not addressing better criticism. He did simply brush off Mauler as an "angry man". Is Mauler "just a troll"?

If you bash Macintosh's praise of the film the same way you bash those "sexist trolls" I will believe you.

I don't' know who Macintosh is. You're rationalizing trolls as critics. It doesn't have to do with whether or not you agree with the implementation of the political messages in the film. I already said that. It's the trolling and the high occurrence of dimwitted complaints in comments sections about people clearly arguing vehemently appealing to nostalgia. You're setting up a position of criticism that's at odds with most any respected criticism, which is fine in itself (imo), but then using that to vindicate trolls disrupting comment sections, using invalid means of arguing a point by, say, imploring to watch a 5 hour video which is considered an ad nauseum argument, and telling people to kill themselves.

The thing is that the irrational mode of commenting is largely a part of what's covered in the hour segment of that video above when he's talking about HBomberguy. That's precisely the type of people that Willems is warding off with the disclaimer. The term SJW is not what he's barring as far as criticism, it's only descriptive of the common behavior of trolling commentators.

[Antiboyscout]

Not really, they aren't. Anti-SJW rhetoric is societal reactionism. You can put an SJW robot in Solo, and people can criticize the implementation of it in the landscape of the film. Though no respectful critic is going to resort to talking in terms of SJWs. Social activism has literally always had a place in art, and the people that employ anti-SJW rhetoric aren't talking about how well it's implemented into a story, just the fact that it's there. It verges very easily into trolling in "comment sections," and not exactly Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics. Diversity and Feminism as objects for legitimate criticism are more ridiculous.

And that's pretty much it. If you're going to tell me that that last part of the quoted text constitutes as criticism and is not completely deplorable, then I'm pretty straight on what I said. It's clear that Willems was addressing trolls.

People complain about an out of place character that makes no sense? Parish the thought.

You don't get to determine what a "respectable" critic is. As Patrick shows, even someone having a film degree does not mean they will give quality critic.

Is it simply the term SJW that determines "bad" critic or does it include the ideology that surrounds it, because those critics on Rotten Tomatoes are just as guilty of indulging in the ideology, from the other side of course.

The complaint has always been how politics is implemented in media. The fact that it is forced, the fact that it demands characters and plot bend to its benefit and not the other way around, that is the problem.

Bad criticism is still criticism. Deflecting it by simply saying "it's a kids movie" instead of addressing what is wrong with the criticism is the point. Worse, is Patrick propping up a strawman of those arguments and not addressing better criticism. He did simply brush off Mauler as an "angry man". Is Mauler "just a troll"?

If you bash Macintosh's praise of the film the same way you bash those "sexist trolls" I will believe you.

I don't' know who Macintosh is. You're rationalizing trolls as critics. It doesn't have to do with whether or not you agree with the implementation of the political messages in the film. I already said that. It's the trolling and the high occurrence of dimwitted complaints in comments sections about people clearly arguing vehemently appealing to nostalgia. You're setting up a position of criticism that's at odds with most any respected criticism, which is fine in itself (imo), but then using that to vindicate trolls disrupting comment sections, using invalid means of arguing a point by, say, imploring to watch a 5 hour video which is considered an ad nauseum argument, and telling people to kill themselves.

The thing is that the irrational mode of commenting is largely a part of what's covered in the hour segment of that video above when he's talking about HBomberguy. That's precisely the type of people that Willems is warding off with the disclaimer. The term SJW is not what he's barring as far as criticism, it's only descriptive of the common behavior of trolling commentators.

Johnathan Macintosh was mentioned in the video.

Ad nauseum =/= a lengthy argument.
You watched Mauler's video (I think) Was it an argument ad nauseum? Is Mauler a troll? Why is suggested watching of a highly detailed breakdown of a movie a form of trolling? Why can't complaints of forced and heavy handed politics be a legitimate criticism?

Using the "it's a kids movie" excuse is as much of a non argument as KYS.

[Karha of Honor]

Fixed the YouTube video for you Worffan.
Nearly 3 hours for an intro? I'm going to need some time to look at this one.

Since this video does seem to touch on the various politics covering the criticism of the new Star Wars, I'm going to agree this is the right place or this topic.

Thanks!

Yeah, it only touches on the politics indirectly--in criticizing the hypocrisy of other youtube reviewers, he touches indirectly on the big elephant in the room that TLJ was advertised as socially liberal, and therefore there were tendencies to paper over its remarkably socially regressive storytelling and the shitty way it treated Rey and Rose, as well as the structural flaws of the movie, in favor of accusing critics of the movie of being cybernazis.

This guy's done some really good analyses--though I am not sold on his takes on Infinity War and Black Panther (I'm of the opinion that Black Panther was a much smarter movie than anyone gives it credit for, despite the slightly dodgy CGI in the final fights, whereas Infinity War didn't really "get" any other MCU movie--I could go on for hours about the subtle tribal politics in play with T'Challa and M'Baku's relationship in Black Panther and the way Infinity War completely misunderstood all of that with the one line of interaction they got in that movie, but that would be boring as hell for anyone without a passing interest in sociology or anthropology), but his Jurassic World 2 analysis was great and I thought his 5-hour (yes, really) analysis of the plot and themes of TLJ made a really great point about how TLJ's buttfucked structure and haphazard artistic sensibilities ruined the themes of its plot.

And I know people want everything in bite-sized sound bites now, but sometimes, you really DO need the in-depth analysis--frex, Moviebob's Batman vs. Superman analysis, which I still maintain is the gold standard for dissecting how a bad movie was made and why despite Bob's recent spate of poorly-researched reaction pieces, is 5 hours about a 2.5 hour movie, and every second of those 5 hours is necessary to explain the fascinating degree to which and obscene number of levels on which that movie fails.

Actually socially liberal or the current Left talking head / op ed Borg Collective sees it as socially liberal?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Not really, they aren't. Anti-SJW rhetoric is societal reactionism. You can put an SJW robot in Solo, and people can criticize the implementation of it in the landscape of the film. Though no respectful critic is going to resort to talking in terms of SJWs. Social activism has literally always had a place in art, and the people that employ anti-SJW rhetoric aren't talking about how well it's implemented into a story, just the fact that it's there. It verges very easily into trolling in "comment sections," and not exactly Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics. Diversity and Feminism as objects for legitimate criticism are more ridiculous.

And that's pretty much it. If you're going to tell me that that last part of the quoted text constitutes as criticism and is not completely deplorable, then I'm pretty straight on what I said. It's clear that Willems was addressing trolls.

People complain about an out of place character that makes no sense? Parish the thought.

You don't get to determine what a "respectable" critic is. As Patrick shows, even someone having a film degree does not mean they will give quality critic.

Is it simply the term SJW that determines "bad" critic or does it include the ideology that surrounds it, because those critics on Rotten Tomatoes are just as guilty of indulging in the ideology, from the other side of course.

The complaint has always been how politics is implemented in media. The fact that it is forced, the fact that it demands characters and plot bend to its benefit and not the other way around, that is the problem.

Bad criticism is still criticism. Deflecting it by simply saying "it's a kids movie" instead of addressing what is wrong with the criticism is the point. Worse, is Patrick propping up a strawman of those arguments and not addressing better criticism. He did simply brush off Mauler as an "angry man". Is Mauler "just a troll"?

If you bash Macintosh's praise of the film the same way you bash those "sexist trolls" I will believe you.

I don't' know who Macintosh is. You're rationalizing trolls as critics. It doesn't have to do with whether or not you agree with the implementation of the political messages in the film. I already said that. It's the trolling and the high occurrence of dimwitted complaints in comments sections about people clearly arguing vehemently appealing to nostalgia. You're setting up a position of criticism that's at odds with most any respected criticism, which is fine in itself (imo), but then using that to vindicate trolls disrupting comment sections, using invalid means of arguing a point by, say, imploring to watch a 5 hour video which is considered an ad nauseum argument, and telling people to kill themselves.

The thing is that the irrational mode of commenting is largely a part of what's covered in the hour segment of that video above when he's talking about HBomberguy. That's precisely the type of people that Willems is warding off with the disclaimer. The term SJW is not what he's barring as far as criticism, it's only descriptive of the common behavior of trolling commentators.

Johnathan Macintosh was mentioned in the video.

Ad nauseum =/= a lengthy argument.
You watched Mauler's video (I think) Was it an argument ad nauseum? Is Mauler a troll? Why is suggested watching of a highly detailed breakdown of a movie a form of trolling? Why can't complaints of forced and heavy handed politics be a legitimate criticism?

Using the "it's a kids movie" excuse is as much of a non argument as KYS.

Well Johnathan Macintosh's appraisal of TLJ doesn't implicate Patrick Willems as far as I was talking about.

I watched the segment of Mauler's video that's specifically the topic of this thread. Neither that segment, the video in whole, nor the videos yet to stream are ad nauseum. Refuting Willems's video because on grounds of "Mauler's video" is ad nauseum on part of the commentator. Thinking back between my last post and this one, I'm getting the sense that part of Mauler's point is that people are making playground 10-minute videos, and are using that to dismiss Mauler's seemingly exhaustive video (exhaustive =/= exhausting btw). That's a fair point for consideration if I'm to examine all the arguments and substance laid out.

Willems's video is a perfectly fine candidate for objective criticism as far as what Mauler's saying. Not that Mauler actually does that as far as the substance of Willems's video. His case with Willems has to do with Willems broad stance on film criticism. And that'sss alllso a point of its own. Probably the principal point as far as Mauler's concern about Willems, and something tempting to examine as far as a cluster of video producers that I watch.

But the sign disclaimer wasn't dismissing Mauler's points in it of themselves. It also wasn't shielding him from Mauler's legitimate speculation of any points he made. It's, crudely speaking (I'll admit), referring to trolling comments. And to be fair, the use of SJW isn't itself a disqualifier for positions, and that's not the point of the very first thing he said on the list. Now, my thoughts; it typically comes off rather asinine as formal nomenclature, and imho seems reasonably indicative of who's employing it. And really, respectfully speaking, this seems to be where your central point and understanding tries to address this particular argument. You can speculate on the appropriate measures of SJW as an indication of dismissable commentators, but it's really clear that he's talking about trolls. I mean, really there are people that will dismiss just the radical right-wing positions. And that might actually be Willems mindset. But acknowledging viewpoints as a position doesn't serve as gateway for misconduct in comments sections to be rationalized as criticism, which I have seen a bit of.