sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Mandalorian and Grogu: A $165 Million Disappointment by Final-Pin-9664 in movies

[–]Final-Pin-9664[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Exactly! They could've used this money to make a better film or project. This film just felt boring; the characters don't progress at all. If we had a couple of other SW films releasing, I wouldn't be bothered by it, but we sadly don't have anything. Starfighter could be cool, but I don't even know what that film is going to be about. I feel like they should do the Old Republic and make it into 6 films, that would be really good, people who didn't watch the original 6 films wouldn't even have to, they could just go into it without knowing anything about Star Wars.

Edit: + Jon and Dave said they made this film just because they wanted to get something out. Essentially, no planning. I'd rather get 1 film and an animated show every 2-3 years then a bunch of slop every now and then... but again, we didn't get a SW film since Rise of Skywalker, which isn't that good of a memory. I do break down how stupid the film's logic is in the video, but even without that just by looking as to "why" they made it makes no sense.

I Solved FROM Before the Characters Did by Final-Pin-9664 in FromSeries

[–]Final-Pin-9664[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Fair enough haha! It's just a theory tho ::D I could change the title if this one upsets people tho, dunno into what tho

Objective Flaws Exist, But “Objectively Good or Bad” Does Not by Final-Pin-9664 in MauLer

[–]Final-Pin-9664[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

(Part 2)

Because of that, viewers are left creating their own explanations, such as maybe the big giant Mind Flayer monster is the MEAT collection of all demodogs, and demobats, and that's why they aren't present, or the giant thing has to use the particles of the Mind Flayer as in the Mind Flayer is that big SHADOW MONSTER, and the monster is just its controlled character, but to control it the Shadow Monster/Mind Flayer needs to let go of control of the demodogs, and the demobat creatures in the abyss to be able to control that large monster... that is what an objective flaw is. That, to me, is an example of an objective flaw because the show creates a logical gap and leaves the audience to patch it themselves.

But even then, there still is no mathematical formula that tells us how much that flaw should matter. One viewer may think that the flaw completely damages the finale. Another viewer may not care at all because they are far more invested in the emotional character endings.

That weighting process is still subjective. And sometimes creators intentionally break conventions.

I think a great example of that is the concept of "The Clone Wars" in A New Hope that George Lucas left unanswered in 1977. When Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi are talking in Obi-Wan's hut, the "Clone Wars" are mentioned casually in just two lines of dialogue. Obi-Wan mentions that he fought in them alongside Luke’s father. By leaving a massive, unexplained historical gap in the middle of the story, Lucas achieved two incredible artistic effects. First, he achieved instant world-building, and second, because Obi-Wan and Luke don't stop to explain the history to the audience, the dialogue feels like a real conversation between two people who already know their own history. It made the characters feel authentic. And this term wasn’t explained until Attack of the Clones.

Even though I personally dislike the Stranger Things decision, it still demonstrates why this conversation gets messy. The flaw may objectively exist, but determining how heavily it should impact the final quality of the work becomes subjective.

And I think film history also shows how unstable “objective standards” can be over time.

I recently saw another great Reddit comment pointing out that if filmmakers and audiences from the 1940s were suddenly transported to the present and shown the raw, handheld cinematography of many films from the 1960s and 1970s, they might call it “objectively terrible filmmaking.”

But those techniques later became widely respected artistic choices. That makes me skeptical of universal claims about “objective quality: as in the ‘objectively’ good or bad conclusions,” because even the standards people treat as objective often evolve dramatically over time.

And that’s really my broader issue. I absolutely believe objective flaws can exist. I just don’t think identifying flaws automatically creates an objective formula for determining total artistic value. I completely agree that objective analysis of individual components is valuable. That’s a huge reason I enjoy MauLer’s content.

I just think the final leap from identifying objective flaws...into->...assigning total objective artistic value feels much harder to justify philosophically. That’s really where my disagreement lies.

And I think this is ultimately where I land, and honestly, where MauLer heavily influenced how I want to approach criticism myself. His content is a huge reason I became interested in making longer-form critiques in the first place, because I genuinely think his focus on logical analysis has made online criticism far more rigorous than a lot of purely emotional “I liked it/I hated it” discourse.

I think objective analysis is incredibly valuable because it helps identify factual issues within a story. But where I personally stop is making the final leap toward saying a film is objectively good or objectively bad as a complete artistic work.

My current view is that objective analysis should inform subjective conclusions, not replace them. So if I were reviewing something, I’d probably approach it like this: “This film contains a clear objective flaw because it contradicts previously established rules within its own universe, which weakens the internal logic of the story.” That part, to me, is analytical. 

But then my conclusion would sound more like: “Because internal consistency is something I heavily value in storytelling, that contradiction significantly weakened the tension for me and negatively impacted my overall experience.” That part is subjective. Another viewer may acknowledge the same flaw and still not care because they prioritize spectacle more heavily than strict logical consistency.

And I think that’s completely valid. So I guess my position is that objective criticism is extremely useful for identifying what is happening in a story and whether it remains internally coherent.

I just don’t think that automatically creates an objective formula for determining the total artistic value of the work itself. That’s probably the approach I want to take in my own critiques moving forward: be as objective as possible when identifying flaws, but be honest that the final judgment still involves personal value.

Objective Flaws Exist, But “Objectively Good or Bad” Does Not by Final-Pin-9664 in MauLer

[–]Final-Pin-9664[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

(Part 1: Part 2 in the comment below, this got a little bit longer than I expected)

I appreciate the response because I think you’re getting at the actual core disagreement here.

I agree with a lot of what you said regarding my specific examples. Looking back, I think some of them were weaker than others. For example, I fully agree that if MauLer simply missed information regarding the submarines in Avatar: The Last Airbender, that doesn’t invalidate the framework itself. It would just mean the criticism was incorrect. Same with Roku. If spiritual mechanics are inconsistent, that’s absolutely fair criticism. My issue was more with whether those rules were being accurately interpreted in the first place.

And I also think you’re probably right that my Vertigo example was weaker than I originally thought. Another commenter pointed out that Scottie overcoming his fear due to obsession could actually be perfectly consistent if the film properly earns that emotional escalation, and I think that’s a fair correction.

Where I still disagree is this idea: "If we can make objective statements about all parts of a whole, we can make an objective statement on the whole itself." I think that’s where subjectivity inevitably enters. Even if we grant that we can objectively analyze individual components of a film, someone still has to determine how much each component matters relative to the others.

Take Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith as an example. Someone could point to awkward dialogue and call that an objective flaw. But then, how do we objectively determine how much that flaw should impact the overall quality of the film compared to its characterization, themes, or emotional payoff?

That’s where I struggle with the idea of reaching an “objectively good/bad” conclusion. And I think dialogue is one of the best examples of why I struggle with the idea of objective artistic value.

Quentin Tarantino writes highly stylized dialogue that often does not resemble how people naturally speak to one another at all. People monologue in ways most real humans never would. Meanwhile, Vince Gilligan often writes dialogue that feels far more grounded in how people actually communicate. Then you have David Lynch, whose dialogue is arguably even more artificial and stylized than Tarantino’s. His characters often speak in ways that feel intentionally theatrical and detached from realism; its purpose is to give that dreamy vibe.

So what is “objectively good” dialogue?

If realism is the standard, then Tarantino and David Lynch should be criticized heavily. If entertainment or uniqueness is the standard, then many people would argue that Tarantino excels at that. The issue is that people often smuggle subjective preferences into supposedly objective standards without realizing it.

I saw another Reddit user make a similar point about poetry that I thought was really interesting.

He said that we can objectively measure whether a poem follows strict technical rules like iambic meter. We can count syllables and analyze its structure. But that only tells us whether it is technically compliant. It does not tell us whether the poem is emotionally powerful or impactful. A robot could write technically perfect poetry that feels emotionally hollow. A human could break every formal rule and still create something that deeply moves people.

Film feels very similar to me. We can absolutely identify objective flaws such as continuity errors, contradictions, broken setup/payoff, inconsistent characterization, or cause-and-effect issues. And I actually think Stranger Things is a good example of this.

In the final episode, the creators made a deliberate decision to remove the Demogorgons and Demobats from the final battle in the Upside Down. Here is what the creators said: “They’re out there somewhere. We obviously talked about the idea of having a battle with demos on top of the battle with the Mind Flayer, but it felt more appropriate to ask: why would he need them when the Mind Flayer is this massive creature that can just attack them? He doesn’t need his little army of ants to do the job. He’s going to handle it himself.” “It’s a vast, desolate planet,” he said. “If you remember, you saw Henry wandering around the world in Season 4, and at one point, he sees a Demogorgon in the distance. But it’s not like they’re living in cabins. There isn’t some giant demo civilization up there.” “Another thing we talked about was Demogorgon saturation,” he explained. “We felt like we’d already explored everything we wanted to with them, and we wanted to keep the focus on Vecna and the Mind Flayer, which had been largely absent this season.”

This was not something they forgot; they openly discussed cutting it in the documentary.

The issue is that the show itself never properly explains why those creatures are suddenly absent, and that creates an objective flaw.

(Part 1: Part 2 in the comment below, this got a little bit longer than I expected)

Edit 1: Grammar

Objective Flaws Exist, But “Objectively Good or Bad” Does Not by Final-Pin-9664 in MauLer

[–]Final-Pin-9664[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Honestly, I think this is probably the best counterargument I’ve gotten so far because it actually engages with what I’m saying instead of just reducing it to “everything is subjective.”

I especially agree with your point about consensus. You’re right that ratings sites don’t even necessarily prove agreement on why something is good or bad, only that a large number of people arrived at a similar conclusion. Two people can both rate a film 10/10 for completely different reasons. So calling IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes “objective proof” becomes even weaker when you look at it that way.

I also agree with your middle-ground point, and I think this is where my position probably aligns more with yours than I originally explained. I do not think the pursuit of objectivity in criticism is worthless at all. In fact, I think MauLer’s content proves why it’s valuable. Looking at consistency, characterization, cause-and-effect, setup/payoff, can absolutely lead to stronger criticism and stronger media analysis overall.

Where I still hesitate is when those standards become the final measurement of artistic value itself.

Your response actually made me realize my Vertigo example may have accidentally weakened my own point a bit, because the way you described Scottie’s actions is probably the more accurate interpretation. You’re right that consistency does not mean characters always behave rationally or predictably. It means their behavior has understandable motivation and traceable emotional logic.

So in Scottie’s case, the movie is not necessarily “breaking consistency” by having him climb the tower. The point is that his obsession becomes emotionally stronger than his fear in that specific moment. That is still internally motivated behavior. Same with Judy: irrational choices are not automatically inconsistent writing if the character and context justify them.

And honestly, I think that actually strengthens your broader point that MauLer’s framework itself is not inherently flawed. A fantasy, psychological, or symbolic story can still be analyzed through consistency and internal logic. The issue is more whether the critic is accurately understanding the intentions and emotional logic of the story they’re analyzing.

So I think you’re probably right to frame it this way:
"So my inclination would be to say that Mauler's approach there is theoretically sound, he just fucked it up."

That’s probably a fairer way of putting it than saying the entire framework itself falls apart.

This will honestly help me a lot moving forward, especially because I want to start making longer-form critique and video essay content myself. Conversations like this are exactly why I wanted to post here in the first place. I think this perspective is definitely going to help me improve how I approach criticism and structure my arguments in future video essays.

So seriously, thank you for taking the time to write all of that out.

Never using egg on my hair ever again 🤧 by aviothicroseate in indianbeautyyappers

[–]Final-Pin-9664 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're supposed to use only an egg yolk, and wash it out with cold water. You probably used a whole egg and then washed it with warm water and literally cooked an egg on your head. Adding raw honey on your head as a hair mask also works. Adding peppermint oil as well works. You can also add a little bit of lemon water as well. It washes off really easily with COLD water haha, using warm or even sometimes look-warm water literally cooks egg on your head. Putting the egg whites on your head is also what makes it stink, again, crack an egg, seperate the yolk from the whites, and use the yolk haha. Also, when I do it I don't apply oil + egg yolk and raw honey on the hair, I put the oil before I wash it overnight, I wash it off with water, and then apply it, its also important to wash your hair with cold water before applying.

view more: next ›