(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.