es the film mean, guys? Can you talk about that? So I can speak as someone who only recently I wonder if James Ralf is playing with these works. By the way, what is it with people who make responses to us and the guests they bring along is the worst part of it? I don't know. I got to be honest with you. I prefer Eric's parts to, even though I think that they're both erroneous. This is totally subjective. I feel like Eric is more genuine than Jack. We do have 43 minutes to go. Yeah. Well, yeah, I'll give my take on that at the end. You can just call me naive. I'm fine with it. I still think that there's good people inside them. And actually, they did try. They've just monumentally failed. Like, I know Eric doesn't recognize how shitty he is. So I think you're right there. Also, someone in chat said, someone in chat said, interesting that you say, claim playground insults, and then you say the cowards and make fun of the gender. Playground insults was referring to us. But we will get to the morality of that if you really are curious on why it's OK to use playground insults. I can't believe I'm saying that. I'm perfectly fine with making fun of their gender or lack thereof. This is so very interesting. Your credit, this guy in chat says, you're criticizing both of them. They're criticizing both of you. Rags is irrelevant and you're using you. You guys are using me as a shield to avoid discussing with them. We've literally offered them to be on the show, but we're not going to kick off a host. I would have liked if you clipped onto us. That's weird. I don't know.  Rags could be literally muted. For the exp... I'm not saying he should be. I wouldn't be OK with it. What I'm saying is in the scenario in which Rags was here but muted, that would be more acceptable because I don't like it. It doesn't sit well with me that he's being forced out for no reason that I don't like it. If you want me to argue like from a... I don't know. He's my friend. He's a member of the podcast. There's no reason why I should do that. It is absolutely asinine to expect that we are going to kick off one of the hosts of the podcast because you don't want him to be there and you don't have any valid reason for it beyond...  I haven't seen the whole video. Well, they've already used me as a way to dishonestly imply that we can't articulate the reasons why we say the things we do. All that Rags is used because Wolf can't articulate. See, guys, I'm enjoying being here. It's great, right? But I feel that you guys are all talking a lot too much. It's making me really uncomfortable, so can you also believe? I'd prefer it if I was just on the stream by myself. And you can debate. You can debate Jay. I'll debate myself. All along, Sins wasn't a guest. He's actually the owner. He's a majority stakeholder in the eFap company. Jay is technically our... He's our business manager. He gets us really. Yeah. Guys, you can't really own this or I'll fire you. The three of us are diversity hires. That's true. That's true. Gas mask people are underrepresented. I used to have a gas mask avatar when I was 12. I used to call myself Sinsins when I was one. Caught you. But my gas mask avatar was far worse because I, unironically, my gas mask avatar was in a fedora. So... Oh. I know. That was your first mistake. Anyway... Oh, no. I made loads of mistakes way before that. I'm not going to comment on that, Jay. I'm just going to say that makes sense. That's all I'm saying. When I was four years old, I yelled, take across the street without knowing what it meant. Someone said, where is Wolf? Nice. Well, listen. Wolf couldn't be here today because we needed someone from the intellectual gaming community to represent... Captain Tonald Luke. Captain Tonald Luke. Beautiful. So I can speak as someone who only recently became acquainted with these works that the Star Wars films are actually good. They are hashtag EricTaxOnApproves. However, there was another motive to me finally watching these films. See, our old pal Mahler has a five hour long critique of The Last Jedi on his channel. And I wanted to give him a fair shake. I know, you didn't. Watch the whole thing. So there you go, Mahler. Someone actually watched one of your critiques. I don't believe that at all. I don't believe you there. I actually don't believe that. I think he has evidence that he's done it later. I'm happy to believe that he has. He still makes the same mistakes that he makes with Wolf. But... Mistakes and quotation marks. I'm being as nice as I can. Look. You said we might call you naive. You're welcome to, honestly. I'll call myself naive. It's just so that it's said. It's not like they can prove that they haven't been malicious and we can't prove that. I mean, we kind of can. I mean, I don't at face value. I don't trust Eric. He has not demonstrated. Does this feel familiar, guys?  I did. In a certain individual situation? But yeah. So it's a joke. It's fine. The part where he says, hey, more or someone actually watched your video. But you didn't expect that to happen. But I have to highlight a bit of a funny. He's almost like accidentally implied that I wouldn't expect my critics to watch the video. And he's saying I actually did. And I'm like, Eric, that's like the base requirement for criticising my video. So it's funny, Eric. I agree. Like it's a nice little delivery there, but it undercuts itself when you really think about what you've just said. That's all. I said individual situation. People think I'm talking about Quinn.  I thought you were. I thought you were. No, Brett Keen. Well, we've never covered Brett Keen. Oh, I don't know enough about Brett Keen. I thought that was what you were referencing. No, no, I'm referencing how we've seen this before on EFAP. Oh, well, we've also seen this on DP. The whole like. I only want to talk to the amazing atheist. Yeah, the argument that we'll gang up on them or whatever is just, I don't know. Come on, guys, really. It's something that I kind of, you could say is admirable about certain people like this. Let's say it was Eric Jack, H-Bomber Guy, Sean, and seven other people, Lindsay Alice, and Dan Olson, all of them in a chat. And then they said, OK, Mola, Mr. You can objectively judge a movie. Come into this chat. I'd be like, sure, I just don't know how much I'd be able to get in with that many people there. But I mean, I would give it a shot. So yeah, come on. We have a precedent of letting people on who we've disagreed with and they've been outnumbered. Yeah, check out the TRO video, I guess is what we can say. Yeah, like the TRO video. Check out the Sin Sin's video and check out the person in the call with us right now. Yeah. I mean, he's the majority shareholder in EFAP and industries now. So look at that. You guys do gag up on your guests. I'm just going to go for a minute. I will be right back. So if by gang up on your guests, you mean we've provided points all backed up a fellow point. It's just like, sure. But my definition of gang up is a little bit more specific and harsher than that.  Like, I don't know what to tell you at that point. That's just not how I would define it myself. Anyway, let's carry on. Hopefully Sin Sin's is able to hear it. See our old pal Mahler someone in the chat pointed out at least just right had the guts to take on both you and me. Like on the floor, like we didn't even expect that he was going to watch that stream. Absolutely. Until he would be in rags. But he said about you and Fallout 76. I don't know what he said about me and Fallout 76. I mean, I mean, can we imagine I don't know. I mean, I think, I think my video is pretty good for a first time, first one of its kind. So it's doing pretty good too. Yeah, it's doing pretty good. Hello. Another motive to me finally watching these films. See, our old pal Mahler has a five hour long. You said what? Sorry. Who said I like to fall out 76? What? That's a hot tower. That is an odd takeaway for somebody to think that I like to fall out 76. Yeah, I personally wouldn't have assumed that from your video. Personally.  I can't get over that video. I love that. Oh, he was just joking. Okay, okay. At this point, we have to make sure. Yeah, he's kind of gone beyond the pale with this week. We don't know what's a joke. I'm not serious. We actually do. Yeah. See, our old pal Mahler has a five hour long critique of the last Jedi on his channel. And I wanted to give him a fair shake. So I watched the whole thing. So there you go, Mahler. Someone actually watched one of your critiques all the way through. Someone seems like a couple, like a million or so people might have done that. No, they just clicked on and off. Who's clickbait? I'm sure you can tell from your audience retention how many people finished it. That's just audience lies. You mean YouTube analytics are just lies, Jay.  I'll admit it. I'll admit it. I was all one million views. All right. So assuming that people went from first to second to third, they didn't just skip to the third. That means nine hundred and eighty people watch them. Well, that's so that's how many. That's the third. It was a joke. Three has he was making a funny.  That's very clear. So from his perspective, why would anyone watch it? And then he's like, why is there a million views on it? No, this makes sense. And then they're like, aha, it's because more is tricking people into thinking he's an in-depth critic, which is the point of this video. Molo, are you buying views? Are you subbotting? Literally buying the bots from rags and the views from Jay. So why are you guys reviewing this? I got some spares. Are you paying people to write nice comments on your videos? No, that's just that's me. It is through all the accounts. Yeah, he pays me to make like 15 new accounts a day. It was very good. Every video. All right. It was concise. Here we go. It was concise. We'll give you a little rundown of the plot of the film they're talking about before they start really delving into the into the minutiae of the larger picture. Like Dan Olson on Folding Ideas has a wonderful video called The Art of Storytelling and the Book of Henry. Just out of curiosity, who is Dan Olson? I don't know who this is. Yeah, I saw it. He made a video. I would actually recommend everyone watch on Suicide Squad. He explains all of the reasons why Suicide Squad is really poorly edited. It's really a strong video. He's not a fan of me because he saw my videos on H. Barma Guy, who he's a friend of and he got very flustered when I said that fun is subjective and that you shouldn't be arguing that it's something that is absolutely gained in certain scenarios for gameplay. So like my argument being H. Barma Guy was like if you make Dark Souls less challenging by changing this thing, it'll be less fun as a result. And I was like, that's not necessarily true.  Yeah, I think it's a pretty silly thing to say.  And it's like, well, yeah. And there were a couple of other problems he seemed to have with it, but he didn't watch much of part one from what I remember of his tweets and he's not a fan. I still think he makes some good videos from what I've seen and I'm totally okay with him. I don't think he's gonna interact with me any time I don't want to. He was just mentioned like three times in this video so far. Yeah, I got it. Okay. Anyway. Gotcha. Nusha of the larger picture, like Dan Olson. Oh yeah, and people are gonna be commenting about his politics. He's probably got politics that people don't like. It's fine. Unfolding Ideas has a wonderful video called The Art of Storytelling and The Book of Henry where he spends like 10 minutes of a 40-minute video just giving a play-by-play of the plot. Mahler's video also has this. It's just, it lasts four hours. And I'd like to say that's 20, yeah, but 10-minute summary out of a 40-minute video. That's 25%. That's a fourth of the video is talking about what happens just a plot summary. That's a lot. So like, this is gonna be a recurring theme of the criticisms that I do too much plot summary. I don't know when to address it as a whole, I think we'll let them make the criticism a few more times just so it sets in as to what exactly they're saying because I've spoken to Jay about it. Yesterday, I think. But calling what I do plot summary to me feels a little bit just like... Simplistic, oversimplistic. A little bit, yeah. Like, I wish I was given a bit more benefit of not the doubt, benefit of the text. I don't know. Just look at what I do when I'm doing a plot summary and if all you can draw from it is something that you feel you could get from Wikipedia, I guess that's fine as interpretation but I'll explain the purpose of it when we get to more of the criticisms. For anyone curious as to what he has to say, you can skip like halfway into part three of the analysis and you'll miss nothing. Like... Really? I... Wow. Disagree. The one of the parts I'm really proud of is the end of part one breaking down what they did to Luke and he's suggesting you skip over it. As much as I understand that he is saying skip the plot summary and go to the summary which is... A lot of people might want to do that with my videos. That's fine. I would personally say even if you want to do that it's worth checking out the Luke bit and then if, you know, if you hate the way it's written Eric and you think you should be skipped anyway, that's fine. I'm just saying that... There's so much in there. There's a lot. There was supposed to... There's so much in there. It's like the majority of the five hours. And if you go to one hour, eight minutes of part three you find the part where me and Mahler became friends. The beautiful little time capsule. As far as I'm concerned and I've not seen the critique in a while so I could be wrong on this but if you want proof for everything you're saying watch the first four hours and if you just want the conclusions watch the rest. That's my take. The summary... I'll be saying things that on their own would require proof but they assume that you've seen the previous four hours. So I mean he's right as far as if you literally just want to know what you think then you'll get a lot of it from just the last part. I mean I've watched the videos multiple times because I know in a single viewing I can't glean everything that's right there. There's just so much. There's so much that's being talked about. So many things that are discussed and compared with one another. So many justifications for the scenes. The idea that if you just skip to four fifths of the way through and you won't miss anything. That's just... Of course, I just agree with that. Like what a... In what universe? But yeah, we'll get going. The analysis and you'll miss nothing. He's spending that entire first four hours just giving a excruciatingly slow... How about all the points where he paused the movie and said this is what they could have done to make this scene better. Yeah, like this is insanely disingenuous. I don't even have a... I don't even have a... Hey! I don't have references to play to count to his point because I just don't think his point holds any weight at all.   That you just objectively... For four hours, you just described literally just what happens in the movie. There's nothing else. There's no thoughts. There's no ideas. There's no criticisms. Glipfax only highlighted because he's seen this video. He was like, it's weird that he says you've essentially summarized the two and a half hour movie in four hours. And he was like, how does he think that you do that without people noticing? Like, you must have put something else in there, right? Like, how would people fall for that? An extended version of what you saw in the film? Like, that would be really... So I have to have something in there, surely. The one I would reference for anybody curious, right? So the Luke part at the end of part one at the beginning of part one near the beginning, I present my take on what could happen if you had Tarkin talking to Po instead of Hux and how you might deal with it from a dialogue perspective is a part where I talk about what it means to subvert and how you could do it well or not. I think I use the departure as a counter example. The problem with Snoke, I think I do have a whole section on that beyond what's happening in the film, what it means for the rest of the series. Like, there's a lot of little pieces of mini-analysis and I think Eric's missed them. Like what... I mean, like in chat said, the Tarkin speech thing. The Tarkin thing. Like, how do you... I was like, there's so many... What do you even say to that? Yeah, so, you know, there's not much to do there other than just say, okay, that's his take, I guess. He's spending that entire first while...  I, this is... I think this is lying. This, the idea that you can listen to four hours or something and just say, it's just a summary of a movie.  Or something. Of course he would. He will do anything to weasel out of any situation he's called out on because he is that disingenuous. I hope that all of his fans will be paying really close attention to this. The response to this is, oh, so we've taken you out of context, have we? Typical molar. And I'm like, okay, but when I provide this moment from the video that you said is only X thing and I'm showing it's Y thing, does this matter to you? And they're like, no. And I'm like, why am I speaking to you? What's the point? If there's no discussion. Okay. Good. Of the analysis. Efebs in the related videos on that screenshot. I mean, I think one of the most interesting parts of your video, I think might be my favorite part, is how you talk about the what they could have done with Poe's character in the Cantalbite scene with good and evil and him developing and learning about the morality and how it might be complicated and all that stuff. I thought it was really, really well done. Really liked it. And I think that to just glean all over that stuff and say that it's essentially to say that doesn't, that didn't even exist.  But if you look at, because it was at the beginning of part two, it was at the beginning of one of them. I forget it's all, it's all kind of a blur because they're all so long. But I mean, not in a good way though. No, it's fine. They're designed to be rewashed. Hopefully, like in a year's time, you go, hey, I might watch it again because there's, it's supposed to be dense with content. And I know that you'd be like, wow, that's Vayne Moeller. But I'm like, oh, well, I was trying to design it that way. I'm not saying it's absolutely true. I want to give you a lot of content. I mean, you did what a lot of other reviewers like wouldn't be able to do, which is go in depth and even give examples of what could be done to improve the movie, not just say this is what's wrong and then leave it at that. Well, like what Wolf said, if you, if you are like an Eric Taksin fan, like if I was a fan of Eric and I watched this and I had watched your video, what do you even think of him at that point? Like what, at what point do the gears start turning about the kind of person that he is? And that's up for everybody to interpret. To each his own, to each his own that you can mull about at your leisure, just to, though speaking out loud. The entire first four hours just giving a excruciatingly slow play-by-play of the movie. But here's the thing, Mahler makes objective critiques. Some of them. And what this means is that every qualitative judgment that he makes on the film is based off of what is provable. Which might seem fine, but what this results- I like that, which might seem fine. It's like, it is fine Eric. Yeah, that would be fine, but he has his opinions in there and- Yeah, there is. So you can see the where we're heading. It's like we're starting in the same position and then they veer off immediately. So they're like, Mahler does objective critiques. Like, careful is objective criticisms in the critique and I usually try and make an objective conclusion based on the objective criticisms while simultaneously letting the audience know how I felt about the content. And that is the critiques, that is not the rages, which is another problem this video has too, but we will get there. Scruciatingly slow, play-by-play of the movie. But here's the thing, Mahler makes objective critiques and what this means is that every, uh, every qualitative judgment that he makes on the film is based off of what is provable. Which might seem fine, but what this results in is it just, the entire critique is just a endless string of observations that you can just see- I thought it was just plot summary. It's basically- So it's interesting that you said that they're an endless string of observations that you can just see. Let's say, for example, the disappearing knife. Did everyone see the disappearing knife on their first run-through? No, I didn't. No, I didn't. I know. I mean, my first run-through, I thought that the, that scene was one of the only few parts of the movie that were good and then it was until later and I was like, oh. I was gonna say the proof of this is you go to my TLJ rage and I say the scene is awesome, then you go to my TLJ critique and I say, okay, it's okay. There's lots of problems.  Yeah, I think it's pretty terrible now. Choreography errors everywhere and you'd be like, well, so it's based on how much you notice and I'm like, that's true. And the thing is, when someone watches a movie- Observations. They notice x amount. The next person notices x. The next person notices x. And Eric, if you notice every single thing that I present in the video, like you'd already know it, that's fantastic, but there's a lot of people who don't. Yeah, and the difference between those is it doesn't matter how much you personally notice. It doesn't change what's actually there. There's an amount of frames in the film, right? Those don't change based on what you do or don't notice. They're always going to be there and we can look at those and we can analyze those. This fascination with first viewing is strange to me. But I don't know if they said it's intrinsically bad to do a plot summary yet, but I'm saying that there is value to presenting observations even if there are things that you just know already. Because that's all I'm doing anyway. It's doing things that anyone else could do. I'm not a god. I mean, plot summary is useful. But you know what? I am not a god. I'm demigod, close, but, you know, unfortunately, I don't like the question. One knows that SimSins is Yahweh. I'm sorry. You're Yahweh, right? I'm sorry, what? You were born again, weren't you? Oh, no, no, no. Yes, once. Just once. Are you trying to tell me that? Are you trying to tell me that I've been following a false god my whole life? Oh, we got guys, we did it. We did it. Jack on Twitter said at the current rate, Mueller's response covered by 53 minute video is going to be over just over 12 and a half hours long. I wish I was kidding. Well done. You've good job. You've pointed out what EFAP is. Congratulations, Jack. Congratulations. You a show that's called every frame of pause will be long. Good job.  Excellent. So smart, Jack. You got us. We've been dismantled. We've complete dismiss. That almost like heals the heartbreak. I now feel knowing that SimSins wasn't actually God. I was going to say it's interesting. My whole world's just rocked. How the opposite ends look at it, though, because we're like, okay, so we need to be very explicit. We need to have references and you just show you where they've been stumbled. I'm going to use that word. Where they've stumbled and how they've stumbled. And then their reaction is you're taking too long. But they're right. It would definitely be better if you just said, no, this is wrong and then moved on. Yes. That would be objectively better. It would be shorter. So it would be shorter. I'm glad they go on with our lives. People clapping. I don't think they ever mentioned that EFAP is long before. I will agree with them on that actually. You know what I'm saying? And putting out there, EFAP is objectively long. Long is not relative. Okay. We all agree. Unless we're talking about like- I think long is relative. Shit. That ruined our argument. Because we agree on everything. Exactly. No, we don't. Especially cats. But yeah. Go ahead, Eric. Take the stage. But what this results in is it just, the entire critique is just a endless string of observations that like you can just see. It's basically just watching the movie again, but slower and with a guy yammering in your ear about how much he hates it. And Maz has displayed to them on some kind of 360 video call, which isn't explained in any way, but why bother at this point? Also interestingly with that point, I actually kind of- I would criticize it myself. I would be like, I didn't necessarily explain why I made that statement because I thought it was obvious, but that's my bad. So what I'm referring to is Maz is in the middle of like a civil war with what she says or some, the civil war union disagreement, I think she says. And she's actively getting shot at. And yet she has a camera that allows her to be displayed in 360 while she's like jumping and jetpacking around. And I was like, huh. Yeah, the hologram just happens to change angles at random moments, which no other hologram has ever done in the history of Star Wars. And she has this setup, the moment that they call her. Like I was just like, okay, that's a thing now. And again, how did, how was Poe the one that called her when he wasn't the one that met her in the Force Awakens? And how did she even get there? Because the last time we saw her was in that castle thing where that exploded. We have to do a lot of assumptions. Like she must have another home and the union dispute might be over the fact that the place got destroyed and her workers are not happy. And she has this call thing ready whenever someone calls her, I guess. And you're just like, all right then. See, I understood that's what you're going for, but have you considered that this is a nitpick which means your entire critique is? Oh yeah. Well, this is the irony, right? So I'm making a small nitpick that is technically what I'm doing. I'm mainly just asking a question of like, how hell does any of that work? But fine, we'll move on. You're saying it's essentially strange. It's an odd thing to have. And so like Quinton, they've taken this and have been like, look what Mola does. And I'm like, you're nitpicking me. That's not all that I do. This is just like how I nitpick the film.  I don't not do that. We're not going to say their whole video is really bad because they just said this one thing.  And there's some things I've said we've agreed with already. Yeah.  I mean, do you want every, do you want every statement in a critique to be about an extremely important, there are people out there who don't think that, who don't think that, why the Death Star, why the first order Death Stars don't just light speed ahead of the Radis. There are people who don't think that's a big deal. One, basically the whole plot of the movie revolves around that. I think that's a colossal failure of the story. And some people don't think it matters at all. So even if you have them, even if you were to have Mola only talk about the big things, what the big things are is, I mean, that's just going to be its own issue. Yeah, it's going to be a nitpick to some people. Like Billy the fridge. He didn't think that was, he literally said, oh, you're just nitpicking. You're taking it too seriously. I like that Billy the fridge jab you made in your video, by the way. He calls himself, it's not so much a jab. He does call himself Billy the fridge. I know. It's just funny. But the whole thing. Yeah, it was on my brain. Like I said, I'm giving Eric a point for how I did not explain what I was trying to talk about there, but negative point for implying that, you know, there's just not much else in the video, which he's already done. But hey, whatever, it gets worse. All which isn't explained in any way, but why bother at this point? Also C3PO no longer has a red arm. There is no reason for this. So he's seen all three parts. So he's seen the part where I amend that. And I don't know. He might have just gotten a clip from people. He said, I don't trust Eric at basically anything he says at this point. I really don't. Anyone in chat remember where I amended that because it was a mistake? Yes, you did. That's indeed you did. Yeah. I think you start off with part three, saying that. Yeah, I literally, I'm like, oh, I've made a couple mistakes. And there's a few things I forgot to mention. Yeah. Yeah, let's go back with some edits and things people pointed out. So there you go. So, oh, yeah. And for anybody who's may not remember, it's not a problem that C3PO has a golden arm back because he gets it back in the Force Awakens right at the end. And it's easy to miss because he's just in a crowd of people. Or at least I missed it. That's that's my point.   And so this is people are like, more doesn't take criticism. I use that as a citation. Then they're like, no, you accept small errors, sure. You don't accept that you make videos that are way too long. They're bloated and they counter the main points you're actually making. And I'm like, you have to prove those things beyond that that's how you feel about my videos. And that's what this video is supposed to be. And this is partially a reason for why we're responding. This is supposed to stand now as my response to an in-depth vision of that claim. At least we tried. I guess it turns out Jack and Eric are willing to go on the stream with you guys. He's not going because he said that we're being disrespectful. I give as I get. Where's that? I'm sorry. But that is in the stream and stream chat. Somebody mentioned that, but you don't get to say the things you say.  Yeah, you don't get to say that we're being disrespectful when you're literally lying about this. I'm sorry. Yeah, like I can't take that seriously after what we've seen so far and what's to come. You've kind of, you've thrown that away. You've lost that. You can't be afforded that charity. Guys, we've been like discussing Eric for quite a while now. Don't forget that Jack does the same thing. Oh, he's coming back. As I said, I felt like he did worse than Eric in this video. Yeah, just so all the Jack and Eric fans that happen to be watching this either live or on the recorded one on the Mueller channel, don't forget that both of these people are making these really disingenuous claims. And I want you to really pay attention to these people.  I wanted to mention, by the way, that even, you know, Shinobi, even he, when he was going to address Wolf's more offensive comments in his Forza Fallen Kingdom review, Shinobi actually put a disclaimer saying that between the time of editing his video and releasing it, Wolf had released a video explaining that he feels slightly different on potential past things that he'd said in videos. Shinobi put that in the video, as if to say, like, Wolf has actually commented on this from here on. I want that to be known. Shinobi had more integrity than these two. And Shinobi went ballistic after that stream. But even then, at least he had, apparently, more integrity than these two. So let's, let's push on, Mr. Eric. He gets just a endless string of observations that, like, you can just see. It's basically just watching the movie again, but slower and with a guy yammering in your ear about how much he hates it. Amaz is displayed to them on some kind of 360 video call, which isn't explained in any way, but why bother at this point? Also, C-3PO no longer has a red arm. There is no reason for this. The act of watching all three of these parts all the way through. Actually, sorry, I forgot as well. I actually move on to why I think that's an issue, because you could be like, why is a changing color an issue? And I said that it can represent the merchandise issue. Yeah. Yeah. It'll give a tell for why they would have done in the first place if there's absolutely no plot reason for it, which is in another, you know, like force diversity, force merchandising would be another thing. As we know, if a movie tries to sell merchandise, it's objectively bad. All three of them. But, Moorla, if you read all of the comics, then you'll know why it happens, which means it's good. That's true. For anybody who didn't know, for anybody who criticizes The Last Jedi unfairly, you can get the DLC in a Lego game and you can get a C-3PO novel that explains the red arm. Okay. So stop complaining. It is a uniquely unpleasant experience. He speaks so much and yet says so little. Run away, Georgie. We need to get away from Pennywise. He said he speaks so much and says so little. I was like, oh, man, let's just hang on to that point. And like the tragic thing is that he does have points in amongst all of the observations. Like he does have actual grievances with the film. It's just like it's so padded out that I appreciate the fact that he managed to say that. He at least was able to say there are points made, geez. Round of applause. Thank you for at least saying that. That must have been so difficult to do. Just not that you were not that you were even right or correct, but that you just made points. Chat, I want to see you all type G for Georgie. We need G for Georgie. We need to respect that this cat is a true survivor. He's like a Navy Seal of felines. G for Georgie, everyone. With the film, it's just like it's so padded out that it becomes meaningless. I don't think so. I think it's full of content. Well, see, so if this wasn't about me, let's say I was Eric's best friend and you asked me to look at the scripts. I'd be like, Eric, what do you mean by meaningless, though? Like, are you saying that you find it meaningless or that nobody should be finding meaning in it? And it's like, I just want to say that I find it meaningless. I'm like, okay, there's not much the guy is going to do with that, though.  Yeah, it's like, feel. You know, it's one of those words that could be very... Like, what do you mean it's meaningless? I feel that this is one of those videos. It's great if you go into it not knowing the situation or if you already agree with it. This is like the TRO video.   Yeah, he said, yeah. That it becomes meaningless. Georgie, run while you have the chance. What you doing? So... Georgie's the MVP of this video, by the way. I prefer Georgie's arguments and I think Georgie's structure is much more efficient. I literally prefer Georgie's arguments.  Oh my god, you do not ever get to say that someone doesn't know how to edit it. Yeah, after you make a close-up of the cat jumping down off the little table thing there, I just don't... Oh, I wasn't even talking about that. I was talking about his video on where it went into a fifth dimension with like six different things playing over top of it with like neon lights. Yeah, but, well, if you're addressing it objectively and not thinking about the theme that was applicable to that moment... The theme of having an epileptic seizure, got it. I'm glad you can. I mean, that's interesting, yeah. But yeah, the... I don't know, I'm still learning as an editor. I don't think I'm a great editor. But my goal as an editor is to have a visual that's relevant to what I'm saying. I don't nail that at all times, but... Yeah, like, that's what I try to do with my fallout video. And I hadn't really done... I mean, it's kind of the first of his kind for me, but I did try to do that and it takes time. I don't know if... Maybe he's referring more so to the script. I don't know why I wouldn't have just said writer in that case, but... Yeah, I tell people this, it doesn't matter because the people who think this way are not going to listen to this perspective anyway, but...  I read over my scripts and I'm like, am I repeating myself here when I say this? No, this is the reason I'm saying this. Am I repeating it? I do it a lot and I'm just... I'm fine with the idea that I've done it. I think that I have done it. It's just that it's a fine line sometimes in the scripting process where I'm like, will this be necessary? Um, there's going to be a line in part five, I think it is, where I re-explain the problems with the stormtroopers in the first order and I actually say, I've explained this in part one, but since that was more than 10 hours ago, I'm going to explain it again because it might be lost on you at this point and that's fair, that's fine. Just just running over a few details.  I'll throw in a skip option now, knowing how people feel about listening to a thing they've heard already. Yep, this is the pattern that underlies all of Mauler's content and illusion of deep analysis until you really give it any critical thought. On, near on every occasion, three quarters of the video are taken up by a bloated Wikipedia summary, interrupted very occasionally with a shallow observation about something Mauler does or does not like. I think that's demonstrably untrue. I found it insulting that you used the word critical thought while saying that sentence. You've not said anything, Jack, you've just stated it as a fact, so you've got to have some references. But I think if we went to those videos of yours and we tallied up the time you spend just saying, all right, here's what the scene is and then compare that to here's what I think about it, here's where it's wrong, here's where they could have done instead. I think it would be incredibly loaded towards the latter. Once we hit 1420, which is soon, we're going to have a little experiment as to exploring Jack's points about my videos and we're going to see how valid they are. It's going to be exciting, but for now I'm just going to say, Mauler doesn't say anything deep but he's pretending to be deep. He just summarizes and then says something shallow that attains to how he doesn't like or does say the thing. It's like, okay, Jack, prove it. Um, okay.  I didn't even think you could ruin a ship, but you found away Disney.  So, now I'm confused because I thought we were talking about the critique videos but now we're jumping to the rage videos and is this claim that I've just said what I don't like after doing plot summary and I'd be like, you sure? Someone said Georgie lives matter. So, if you want me to explain it to you, the the ranting in the video is obviously scripted it's for entertainment purposes but it does represent how the movie can or may have made me feel so it could be amplified by that. I really like the Millennium Falcon, personally. And when I found out that L337 is the Millennium Falcon, that annoys me. Can't say that I was thrilled. So that's what that little sequence is. It's supposed to make you laugh while also feeling a little bit like, yeah, that's kind of how I feel about it too. Entertainment is the primary focus of the rage videos. Now, will I ever make an objective argument in a rage video? I don't see why not, especially if it bolsters an argument. But will I make a more subjective probably claims in a rage video compared to a critique? Probably. It's supposed to be a passionate rant. I thought the title would help. Yeah, it has the word rage in it, unbridled rage. Which doesn't apply to deep-studied criticism. I've got a stake on this, if you want to. I had a discussion with him about this in the comments. Oh, I would love it. I've snapped his first comment from that. We're going to do comments at the end, but we will get Jack. Jack will reconcile this contradiction in a comment. We're going to address it at the end, but so we're just presenting the counter argument to the video first. I'll rally with any real flu. So, discuss amongst yourselves. So, what is the best kind of tree? Turley. The best kind of tree? Oh, I get it. He's a dog. Vavorith said it's for people who didn't watch the video, so it's fine that his quotes are out of place. The other aspect of this is that I'm taking that one piece of my solo rage video, which is, I believe, over 40 minutes, over 45. I can't remember specifically. It's interesting because it's like, would you, like, someone who is a huge fan of this channel, do you believe that he's represented the video correctly if he's taken one seven-second clip at most out of what is nearly an hour potentially? Like, for me personally, again, if I was Jack's friend, I'd be like, I don't know, dude, like, I haven't seen that video. Is it really mainly that? Like, sure you could at least get three examples in a row. I don't know. I might check out the video just to make sure, and then you watch and you're like, oh, he talks about how Han Solo has been fucked up in the film and is also contradictive while behaving strangely in terms of, like, goes through a similar arc to the fourth one, and you hope all Star Wars, depending on how you'd like to refer to it, the climax is beyond confusing for what everybody's doing in that room and why they planned for what they did in terms of what their goals are. Like, I break all that down talking about how they've spent extreme amounts of money on the movie and it's all in the practical effects and sets and you could be like, what's wrong with that?  And you're like, oh, and they did, and it's shown in their bleeding budget along with the reshoots. What else did I say? Like, I'm just trying to remember the more substantive points that go beyond me just ranting and making funny jokes sort of thing. That's kind of what I'm getting at here and I just feel like it's a little bit unfair to say that that's what's going on in these videos more so than anything else. Yes. That's my contribution here. Yes. I think we need to get Jared's input personally. I think you'd say I did it okay the way I did it. Why are people spamming tree emojis in the chat? I've seen like three now, I think. Rags peen on a tree. Tree milk. Can you milk any tree? It's called sat. Why would you ask why instead of knowing? You should know what can and cannot be milked. This is a plot hole. Yeah, I can ruin everything. Jay, I need to ask you something. Sure. Is it about a film I have or haven't seen? Should I answer that question? I mean, answer it by going on with what it is you have to ask me. Well, there's some things that some people have seen that you may not have. I just wanted to know if perhaps you have or have not seen them. Sure. Let's do this. Moon. I actually saw the first half of it then realized I was alone in a dark room where the lights didn't work and thought maybe not now because it seems kind of creepy. That doesn't count, Ex Machina. Yes. Her. I don't have it. Oh wait, which one? Her. No. Robot and Frank. I'm sorry, what is that? Robot and Frank. No, I heard you. I just I literally don't know what that is. Oh, that's a that's another movie. Requiem for a Dream. Um, no. The Prestige. No. Blast from the past. Nope. This is the end. Is that a film or are you just saying that to me like this is the end? No, no, no, no, that's an actual video or movie. I have returned. I have not seen that. Is that the one with Seth Rogen? Oh God. E.T. Yes. Thank God. Thank God. I felt like I was going to have a heart attack. The thin red line. E.T. No. The wind that shakes the barley. Nope. Fracture. No. Catch me if you can. Nope. 21. Jump Street. No, 21. No, I've seen 21 Jump Street though. It's not the same. Yes, it is. It has the word. No, it's not. It isn't my opinion. It is the same because it has the word 21 in it. A few good men. No. Doomsday. I've seen John Wick person in the chat and I wanted to draw attention to that because it's one I have seen. Okay, Paradise Now. Nope. Susan of the Witch. No. Harold and Kumar escaped from Garza.  Like I've seen a lot of films, just not these ones. Like that's how I feel. Free Willy. Wait, yes, but I was really young and I don't remember it. Okay, that still counts. Stand by me. No. Peter Jackson's King Kong. Wait, you haven't seen Stand by Me? Are you shitting me? I love Stand by Me. How are you surprised by me not having seen the film? Come on. How does this surprise you at this point? Peter Jackson's King Kong. I've seen Percy Jackson. Oh, no. That was not the answer. You should have gone for it. Oh. Oh. Tropical. I hated it if that makes you happy. I've already told you I'm not... Push. Oh, man, I like Push. I knew that the stream was going to become this at some point. Push. Answer the question. I said, I already said I haven't seen that. Jomaji. Yes. Oh, I like that. Hidalgo. I'm sure what? That's Hidalgo. I don't know what that is. I love Hidalgo. Vigo Mortensen. Yeah, I saw it because of him. Yeah, Dead Poet Society. Oh, another Robin Williams. Oh, thank God. Smoke Signals? No. The Silence of the Lambs? No. Top Gun. Really big horror. So any horror to see this now? Good morning, Vietnam. I've not seen Top Gun. Good morning, Vietnam. What? Oh, the thing? I've not seen that. I really want to see the thing, but I've not yet. Shutter Island. Yes. The Mummy and the Mummy Returns with Brendan Fraser. I've seen all three Mummy films. Oh, goth. Okay, you at least got that one. Unbreakable. No. Old school. No. Plain Strains in Automobiles. No. A lot harder than me. Do I have to? I live it. Well, someone said not human. Not human. We're going to skip that one. We were soldiers. Oh, God. Oh, of course he hasn't. I have seen Vampire. No, not Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter. And that's, I think, all I need to see. No. I have seen Die Hard Person in the chat. The Sixth Sense? Yes. The Island. Actually, I don't mind if you haven't seen that one. Never mind. Patriot games. Oh, no. The Patriot. And, first in the chat, I have seen Thor the Dark World, unfortunately. Oh, my God. Monty Python in the Holy Grail? Yes. Gadica? No. What? Huh. Do you want to put that on pause until we find another possible break? No, we have to go over everything. This is why the stream is going to be 12 hours long. I was just saying, I was just going to name every movie that ever existed. I'm literally going over every movie that I own. Beginning in 1829. Do you like me to just record a clip of me saying I haven't seen that and then I can leave for the duration of this part and you can just play that on loop? Obviously. Look at all the... This is so many movie suggestions. I've seen Spaceballs Chat. Kitch. I've not seen Twilight. Why would you ask me that? Have you seen Thumb Wars? The Phantom Cuticle? I've not seen Twilight New Moon. Stop asking me Twilight phones. I just cannot fathom how you have not seen Stand By Me. I mean, even if... That was like one of the movies I watched as a kid, like over and over and over. I love that movie. Sandlot? I've seen The Sandlot. Oh, God. He hasn't seen The Sandlot. Come on. A couple boys said, is there a film that you think is objectively bad but you really enjoy and think is subjectively good? Or, well, just you like subjectively? The Avenger of the Sith. The Room. Yeah, The Room, The Avenger of the Sith. Yeah, my Batman and Robin I always say. Annihilation. What it meant to say? Black Panther. Well, I mean, that's fine. This clip that Jack used, by the way, I do go on to explain why it's an issue as well and how it happened and what doing that to the Falcon is doing. Things that this introduces. This is the funny rage part.  I do in the Predator video as well, but it's like, leave those bits out. Those pesky... What is it in that pesky context off? Remember to turn off that pesky context.  I didn't even think you could ruin a ship but you found a way, Disney.  I stand by that statement.  But it's like, you did it.  Rarely with any real thrust to his arguments. Hey, Jack, what does it mean to have thrust to your argument? Also, what direction is the thrust going in? That's very important. What position? Is it a downward thrust? This is a downward thrust, yeah. I like it. I like it. His total bloke involved. Arnold would approve of Jack's videos.  I didn't even think you could ruin a ship but you found a way, Disney.  Rarely with any real thrust to his arguments. Rarely elaborated on as he sacrifices depth for breadth. And as you hurt towards the conclusion after a two to five... I don't think he does. Yeah, he's saying I do. That's it. I... that's an interesting opinion you have there. I think people on the team, if you will, for this actually consider that criticism where they just go... Like for example, all Wolfe's videos are a blue screens and noise. I've said it. So that's criticism now. And Wolfe's just like, that's just nothing in relation to my stuff. And it's like, yeah, but it's criticism though. So, yeah, fucked. Five hour long rant. You know little more about the film than what happens in it. Well, this is just a 53 minute rant. And I actually argue there's a bit of a ramble on Eric's part because he does seem... I think he may have had a script and then he's sort of going off script, collectively.  With a few errors. And whether... Oh, wait, sorry. Let's go back a bit. Really elaborated on as he sacrifices depth for breadth. And as you hurt towards the conclusion after a two to five hour long rant, you know little more about the film than what happens in it with a few errors. And whether some guy on the internet personally enjoyed it. How... what else is there that wouldn't come under those two things? Because a theme would happen in the film. So what? The errors would also happen in the film. What happens in the film and what the guy thought of it? It's like, what statement can you make about a movie in a review that wouldn't come under one of those two things? Yeah, name a movie reviewer who doesn't do that? I... Moola and his fag... Because if he's talking about like, what I drew from The Last Jedi was that in my life, you know, I've failed several times and I realized that those failures are precisely what brought me to my success. And so I really am, you know, I really connect with The Last Jedi's lesson. I'd be like, okay, and that's fine. And that's in the movie. So he's still talking about what is in the movie and then what he got from it. You know, so I don't understand it. Like, because he's... They're always arguing for depth meaning stuff like talking about themes, which I do. So I don't even know why they're saying that, but whatever. Fans, of course, objecting to this assessment as they believe he digs into something more, it might be a problem for someone else, right? But it's a problem in their subjective lens. It doesn't make it objective that... Not talking about people. It is a problem factually. Some defenders of Moola's style of analysis. See, so... What was wrong with that? Yeah. So Jax accused me of... He's gonna have one point in this video, but I think you may have done it already. Where I'll just state a thing, but I don't actually explore why it's bad and he's just done it there for me. Yeah, that's... So keep that in mind, folks. I had to ask, yeah. Oh, how did I know that he was going to bring Sargon up? I just knew it. Objective fact. Not talking about people. It is a problem factually. Some defenders of Moola's style of analysis assert that Moola... That's not... By the way, that quote, that's not to say that any objective flaw is a factual flaw. It's the specific one we were discussing in that conversation, which, again, context that pesky fucker is getting in the way, but sorry, there's a bit more than just that quote. Just don't include it. Use multiple lenses of critical analysis to see the work from as many sides as possible. And that's what justifies this issue on that. So Sargon did make a video in defense of me, and I actually quite liked a lot of it. There's one point where Sargon says that Moola is trying to reach an objective take by exploring all takes and figuring out what each of the individual ones are lacking and then sort of combine them into a cohesive whole.  I'm just trying... My criteria is just what's there, what's provable. And they even say this in the video at one point that that's kind of what I'm going for. And when you come to provable, there are things that I will miss. There's always going to be things I'll miss because I'm human. And then people will be like, aha, so it's subjective. And they'll be like, no, that means I made a mistake for fuck's sake. So you could call that a will-view thing or whatever. But yeah, I don't come at the last Jedi from the mind of every race, every sexuality, every political position, every walk of life, even different species. I don't even know that it's possible to do that. And I don't claim to try to do that. So Sargon may have the wrong impression. He'd be interested to maybe see what he thinks about my sort of response to that. Regardless... Someone said, bring V on, then kick V. Regardless, unfortunately for Jack, he's going to take this argument and argue against it, but it's never something I've said. So... Yeah, but it's so easy to just... Yeah, like if just find someone, like if I just find... If I pay a guy to say, rags always loves murdering people on a Tuesday, or that he'd be like, rags, this is why you shouldn't... Tomorrow is the day, guys. Tomorrow is the day. Buckle up. It's going to be some killing. With style of analysis, assert that Mauler uses multiple lenses of critical analysis to see the work from as many sides as possible. And that's what justifies this format. Nope. You could maybe argue Mauler briefly touches on the feminist aspect of a work. I don't touch on the feminist aspects of a work. I don't think... I don't know why he's... Beth, I think I... I'm not saying I've never mentioned it. I'm saying to say that I touch on the feminist aspect is pretty generous to me. You know? I mean, you mentioned that some people have a feminist aspect of it. I'm more the one that mentions that. Yeah. So I know for a fact that I say that in DS2, you can't choose your gender from the get-go. You spawn as a man, and then you can choose your gender in about, I don't know, five minutes from there. And so I find it interesting that when HBomber Guy is summing up all the game, I'm surprised he doesn't have any issue with that as a feminist. That's all I said. Like, I didn't declare that I'm in favor or against feminism. I literally just pointed out that it's interesting as a feminist that you wouldn't have an issue with a game that's previously allowed you to choose what gender you spawn in with, that it's forcing you to be male immediately. And you could be like, well, that's just a nitpick. And I'd be like, no, sure. That's fine. That's fine. I found it interesting that it's not something that would bother him at all. So if someone said... What do you think? Oh, go ahead. I was just going to say that if someone said, like, see, you do explore it from the family, I'd be like, that's, I think, a bit of an over-exaggeration. But I mean, I wouldn't even consider it a criticism. I'd just be like, okay, if that's how you think I do it, fine. And if you're somebody who liked the idea of an apolitical review, I mean, you're pretty much that. I try to be. And he's not really criticizing you at this point. He's criticizing what Sargon said about you. He's saying that Sargon is wrong, not you. Well, and a lot of people are mentioning in the chat that, of course, they talk about Sargon because he's on the other side politically than them. Sorry, Sins. Jay, don't you think it's a little bit cheap to take a point that I don't hold and counter it? Yeah, it's cheap. But this is, yeah, I'm just saying, this is not an issue with... This is not your fault. None of this is like something, anything you've done wrong. The fact that someone has said, your work has this merit or this quality and it's not something that you even try to put in your work, really, is like, you know, that's not a problem that you have. That's something someone else said incorrectly. Why is this even in the video, you know? Yeah, like, how many people are really saying that I approach media criticism from every lens possible? Like, is there a lot of people saying that about my work? I've never heard that before myself. Hey. Mostly just to accuse female characters of being Mary Sue's, but... Characters. Okay, so let's, let's do that again. To see the work from as many sides as possible and that's what justifies this format. Nope. You could maybe argue more or briefly touches on the feminist aspect of a work, mostly just to accuse female characters of being Mary Sue's. So the implication there is that I believe that I need, I need to use feminism to excuse pointing out a character as a Mary Sue. I'm not entirely sure of what he thinks. What does Mary, Mary Sue, I mean, there are male equivalents to that.  It couldn't be the result of a feminist creating content, but it could happen. The origin of a Mary Sue is just someone writing a fan fiction. They insert themselves. Could be the result of a diversity hire.  Mary Sue and feminists are not intrinsically connected. And I don't think I've ever said they are. That's a strange point. I mean, I mean, it's very easy to argue the flip side and say that a Mary Sue would make a feminist upset because it's a very poorly constructed character that makes females look bad on screen. To see the one. Yeah, a lot of people obviously think Gary Stu, but people even refer to some male characters as Mary Sue's, as if to say a Mary Sue isn't tied specifically to a female. But there's this discussion to be had about that. Either way, certain people believe Mary Sue can be applied to a man. And if not, it'd be called a Gary Stu anyway. I would recommend the Trope Talks video on Mary Sue's. I think it covers the topic really well. But I can't remember. Some said Ryan Gosling. The channel is Overly Sarcastic Productions. If you want an overview of what a Mary Sue is, I would recommend that video. By the way, it's ironic that we're spending so much time with context and explaining all the, how these points are bullshit. And the biggest response we'll get to this is too long. Well, if I make a video about words are bad and you use words to counter me, then ha. Long man bad. That's right. Yeah, that was right. Long man. Work from as many sides as possible. And that's what justifies this format. Nope. You could maybe argue more of briefly touches on the feminist aspect of a work. You can accuse me of that. Mostly just to accuse female characters of being Mary Sue's. But for much else, psychoanalysis, post-colonialism.  No, I don't look at the last Jedi through post-colonialism. You're right. What about queer theory? Queer theory. That's the important one. Moxism.  You just call it query and save time. That's true. I'm a fan of that. This is why we have Jay here. You should tell that to just right, see if he's like, wow. The problem is we spend more time discussing the way that he saves us time than time was actually saved. But I don't think we really need to focus. Post-colonialism. What? If you don't know what it is, Wolf, that's your fault. I know what it is. I want to know how exactly he thinks that applies to anything that we do or say. Well, his point is that I don't look at the movie through that lens. And I think there's something to say. So therefore I don't look at it through all lenses, which is not a position I hold anyway, but. But instead of going through, like there could be a discussion there about what Sargon said about looking at a movie through how do we stay, you know, true to those particular lenses if we don't necessarily agree with them? How do we make sure our views on those issues aren't necessarily skewed? But he just says nope and that's kind of it. And he lists examples of the lenses, but he doesn't really give us any information on how that might change the way it's seen as portrayed or how it might make a scene better or how the lens that maybe a director sees the world through could influence the final product. None of that stuff is discussed. Maybe he does later, I guess we'll see. Yeah, that's true.  Marvel and Mueller spending three minutes of his last-genre analysis saying, I don't like to get political, but film thinks war profiteering bad and child slavery bad. And that is bad because- What? Disney- Yeah, that's nowhere near what you said. Oh, wow. So we're going to go on an adventure, folks. Hooray. We're going to check out my part of the video that he's referencing because he's just summed up my portion on Canto Byte as child slavery bad, animal cruelty bad, and this is bad because Disney- Sorry, what was this whole thing? Makes money. Disney makes money. There you go. So we're going to rush over to my video and I apologize for this, but we're going to be watching five minutes of my video. Somebody- That sounds too long. It is long. I know that that's too. Going dramatically far. So 6.15. God, can't you summarize this in under five minutes? Is a planet- You're right. That's a salgon quote. I would really prefer to view these five minutes through a post-colonial lens. We're going to keep in mind what Jack has said and we're also going to keep in mind that Eric said this is part of the section of I speak so much, yet I say so little. So here comes a five-minute section, I suppose. It filled with massive over-the-top security, likely because the place makes a massive amount of money. This means that all those animals that her and Finn have released will be captured and put back to work. This is obvious as what else would happen when that many centuries are all chasing the targets when they've been shown to have weaponry. They aren't shooting because they're trying to catch the animals and it's only a matter of time before they do, which is dumb in itself by the way as they cause more damage to the world and grief to the guests than I'm sure they're worth, but whatever. What Rosa said here is akin to a child's outlook on animal cruelty. Just free them all, let them return to their homes. It is very likely that they can't even survive in the wild, that they've been born and raised in captivity. None of this is handled with a lick of realism and considering this series is being looked at as children's content despite the incredibly deep themes and the violence. What is it that you think this teaches children exactly? Free animals, no matter what? Stop mean things from happening? If anything, this will simply give children the wrong ideas. Moving on to Finn, he is mostly along for Rosa's ride, but he does comment on the destruction of the casino as a sort of revenge against the people who run the planet, the rich war profiteers. Now this is actually childlike writing again. A glossed view of the world with the bad guy loses because we broke his toys. Finn accomplished the destruction of many areas of Canto Bites, scaring and injuring citizens or tourists while labeling them all as evils he trampled through without any specific information on any of them, only to claim the revenge he apparently sought. What a great character. An easy comparison for this is the sad realization that by destroying the- Sorry? That was one of my favorite parts of the series that he did. Oh, thank you. Death Star Luke may have killed many innocent stormtroopers conscripted for the sole reason that they were unlucky and didn't believe in the empire at all. Who knows? This is inevitably going to happen in order to stop this planet killer from completing its goals. Here though, he is just rampaging through a random city on a planet under the justification that he doesn't like the people who live here. What about the good people who are here? What about the slave labor that may be serving these people as you trample through? What about characters just like you and Rose who are here to find something? It is so interesting that a character who's established as unable to stomach human suffering is so blunderously carving through a complex filled with humans causing suffering. It is almost like there is no care taken with the characters in this film. But that's ridiculous, right? The carnage is apparently justified by some of these people having profited from war. Do you understand what that means? They didn't cause the war, they simply profited from it. They aren't even strictly evil on the scale. They're just opportunists. Besides that, as a disgruntled sanitation worker for the first order, Finn should know well and good that when something is damaged in the Star Killer base or the supremacy, the mess is not cleaned up by Snoke or Hux or Kylo Ren. It would be sanitation, engineering, plumbing or a specific section of people that work. Perhaps a slave group. Real people like Finn clean up the mess is that he is making right now and he should know this.  But what does that matter? We know they have slave labor so they're just going to use them thanks to Finn there's going to be months and months of whipping and ridicule also that he could feel better about these evil men who rule this world. People feel like this whole sequence was a moment for Finn to grow and learn in relation to the evils in the world while in reality it was an embarrassing cavalcade of virtues being sprayed across a disconnected and clumsily constructed plotline. Finn's new and idiotic attitude is the similar kind of attitude that many misguided activists have in our world today. Freeing animals only to scare or hurt them or ultimately return them to where they were found or they will destroy property in the name of hurting the one who's at the top of the chain when in reality they only hurt the workers who fix it all. This whole mess on Canto Bight is the foreground to the theme of war profiteers getting richer and richer while the young defenseless children of the world are used as free labor for the planet the rich enjoy. This is so unbelievably on the nose, it's embarrassing. Why in Star Wars would they be using child labor instead of droids when the droids would be cheaper, stronger, faster, and far more subservient? This isn't Tatooine, a distant desert planet filled with those who multiply out of poverty and engage in slavery from birth as a form of shelter and living. But at least Tatooine did have droids too. They were just low quality. This is a luxury casino planet filled with the galaxy's richest men and monsters. Why would they even bother with anything but the finest, most efficient technology? I know why. Ryan Johnson wanted you to know that these were very evil people.  Look at him. He looks like he's about to strangle Ryan. Children, the heart coming before the mind. And what a surprise!  Is it a human child? I wish! So... Oh wait, just 90 seconds. Or Canto Byte screams of a child's view of the world and its injustices. The simplistic look at everything wrong with the world and why we should all change our behavior. So... That's my take on Canto Byte as a finisher, right? So that was, like I said, five minutes. I said... The animals are going to be captured and put back. Choosing to not shoot the animals is also interesting because they're probably dealing more damage than they're worth. So that's another weird thing. Very likely they can't survive out of being captured. All of it was made worse when looking at it as a message for children because it's so overt and contradictory. And that's a point of irony because people will claim that it's just for kids. You know, the thing. But also claim that it has incredibly deep themes that typically kids wouldn't even understand. Finn comments on the casino damage as, like, good? Because, you know, these are the bad guys despite having no idea if these people are even evil. And that's, like, intrinsic to the origin of his character. So contradiction again. Going up with, um... Even if selling weapons to a wall was true and bad, it doesn't make them reprehensible because the film itself tells us that they sell to the good guys too. So how do you even justify that? And on top of it, um, kind of, I find because of insurance, you wouldn't even consider that. Droids are cheaper than child labor. Faster than child labor. They're more subservient than child labor, like I said. And who knows what kind of punishment the slaves are gonna get because of this because they helped them.  So they were all on my points and that was over five minutes. So Eric says, like, I say nothing despite saying a lot. And, um, Jack summed this up with what you heard. I don't even, like, there is a comment in here somewhere. I think I comment on the irony of, um, Disney telling us that the 1% of the problem when... They're a huge, massive, multi-million-dollar corporation with more money than God. It's, it's actually insane. And, like, he's got a response to that here. I hope I can pause it to be, like... Mostly just to accuse female characters of being their soos. But for much else... Jay? Psycho. Yes. What am I looking at? Thrump. Thrump. Thrump? Hashtag Thrump, everyone. Analysis. Post-colonialism. Queer theory. Marxism. Marvel and Mueller spending three minutes of his last Jedi analysis saying, I don't like to get political, but film thinks war profiteering bad and child slavery bad. And that is bad because Disney makes... So can you see this picture? We should improve society. Yet you participate in society. Curious, I am very intelligent. So he thinks that this is equivalent to me saying Disney are contradictive to claim that capitalism bad when they're the biggest profiteers from capitalism. The reason this is not the same thing, Jack, this is a false equivalency, is because that is a peasant potentially working hard to survive and is thus involved in the society just like all of us are. So criticizing society would be the same, but Disney are at the peak as a result of the system in the society. So for them to tell us that we should stop this system, it's just like, what the fuck? You guys don't donate the majority of your money to other people who are struggling. Yeah, it's like a, how do you do, fellow kids, but for a corporation? They're trying to fool us into something that they're not. It reminds me of when YouTube Rewind 2018, they had that section to stop and talk about all of those like essentially hot political issues that YouTube, like YouTube's actual actions go against. Like they spoke about LGBT issues, I believe when they systematically demonetize videos about LGBT issues. It's like, you know, actions speak well. Not to mention. I would have, I would say that is equivalent. Not to mention their aggressive advertising of what will happen if Article 13 goes through and they're like, all videos will be blank. And then it's like, you delete channels, YouTube. You're doing this already.   It's the same with Patreon. My dream, what I mean is I love YouTube. Please don't, I worship the YouTube algorithm. YouTube is great, finally. I love YouTube too. It's great. It's amazing. I have no problems with the whatsoever over there. It's a flawless platform. I love it. It's great. I hope nothing changes. I really like Susan. She's my favorite. She's my favorite person, whoever personed.   I'm pretty sure they're worth like $100 billion or something. So they're the ones that can make a serious impact if they actually consider this a societal issue. And yet, they're just telling us that they think it should be. If I consider that a contradiction versus the peasant who is attempting to survive and this little twat says, yet you participate in society, not the same thing. But I appreciate the joke, I guess. So yeah, just another standard straw man. It's like, Moeller thinks that it's bad that they have these politics because Disney makes money. And it's just like, yeah, that's a great way to summarize the whole sequence, which I think you guys would agree, right? It's more, way more focused on the actual consistencies in the film. I don't actually comment on, I don't even, I can't remember if I say it in the video, but my intention is not to confirm whether or not child slavery is a bad thing. Obviously, I personally think it's a bad thing, but I'm not interested if that's... It's about how it's executed. If you tell me child slavery is bad and the whole film is about how beneficial child slavery is, I'd be like, seems a bit at odds with yourself there, Movie. How many child slaves do you have? 17, but that's one down from last year, so. It depends on the dates you're constantly buying and selling new ones, so the number of changes a little bit over time. It depends how you define child. It depends on how you define slave. Define, define. Define, define, define. Anyway, the point is, this video is a joke so far, and it's demonstrably untrue. Oh, they've changed their requirements. Rags can be on, but he has to be muted the whole time. Oh, well, that's a distinction without a difference, isn't it? I mean, I was gonna say, like, I wish I could agree, but the idea is that if Rags has something important to say, then you should be allowed to say it. What is it? Because Rags could just be in the audience at that point. If he's not allowed to say anything, but he's allowed to be in the call, that just makes it so that he's able to hear the conversation a couple of seconds before everyone else. Like, what difference does that make? Why are you Dutch cowards?  Okay, that's fine.  So long as you kill yourself, I think that solves everything. So I have a, so if the video, if it's about who's the video, who the video is about, does that mean Sargon can be in the call? I guess Dan Olson and Lindsay Ale should be here too. Let's just literally invite everyone who's ever done anything. I guess I won't be there then, but still.   You're subhuman, honestly. They're going to love that comment. Oh yeah.  Quote me on it. I think you're both subhuman. That's going to be their entire takeaway from the stream, is they're going to take that quote and so present that as your entire argument against what they've said. Congratulations, Wolf. They're going to take you out of contact. Well, they'll misrepresent your position. That's what that'll be. Yeah. Oh well. There'll be no reason for you to have said that. He cares about the facts. He said it. I was going to say, this whole stream is about how they don't do that anyway. So why would that be a surprise? Like, why would I care enough to even give them the benefit of the doubt for anything?  I mean, they cross that line almost immediately. I really don't care what they have to say because we can see what they say is just... It's just like... Like you're just terrible. I can't... I haven't seen this level of just disingenuous bad faith arguments possibly ever. I mean, this is like such a low bar. I actually... I like want to hug Quentin and be like, you're at least not as bad as these two. At least you're not as bad as Eric Jackson in this one. You're like third worst. Something I think that's with highlighting, by the way, is... You know that whole sequence for like five minutes? You can argue I am doing a plot summary of Canto Byte or something like that. I'm saying you can. I'm saying it would be inaccurate. Wait, is that within the part they call your plot summary? No, I'm not suggesting... I'm not suggesting they've explicitly said that, but Eric did say that the first... Was it four or something hours? Is essentially just excruciatingly explaining the plot and what I just showed you is in that four hours. Yeah, that's what I was asking. So if they do think that it's plot summary and like this sounds so condescending, but guys, if I'm still talking about Canto... If I'm talking about Canto Byte and I explain one reason why I don't like Canto Byte and then your reaction is, okay, move on. Then I go, here's the second reason and then they're like, oh, he's still on Canto Byte. Here's the third reason until they hit five minutes and I've done the 15 reasons or 10 or whatever. And then they're like, he just cannot move on from Canto Byte. This is insane. I would be like, guys, you know, that's not... That's not how the video is working. Just because I'm still on the topic of Canto Byte does not mean I have not moved on from the previous point. I don't know how else to say that. Yeah, just... If they're counting this as plot summary that is incredibly reductive and... I mean, I guess he does say it's plot summary with a guy telling you why he doesn't like it. I guess that technically is what it is. There is... But I didn't say... When I say that Finn's character is being contradicted, I could like that for all someone knows, you know? I could also dislike it. I didn't even tell you if I liked it or not. That's true. But that comes into the subjective-objective argument, which I still don't necessarily know exactly how they stand on that. Anyway... Makes money. Let's go back a little bit. Marvel is a... Marvel at Moorla's... It's great because it's darker than it was when we started.  And that is bad because... Disney makes money. As it goes, Moorla is almost scared to bring up any wider context from which to view a film. You don't get to call anyone else scared when you can't even come to a call where there's three people in it. This is a point with evidence. His point is that I'm scared to bring up a wider context and he's going to play a clip for it. This is interesting to me. Disney makes money. As it goes, Moorla is almost scared to bring up any wider context from which to view a film. He gets rather flustered when she implies that the artifacts were discovered and corrects her. These things were not paid for by this woman's ancestors.  The only lens Moorla... So, he thinks that that's me saying I'm too scared to present my perspective on whether or not Killmonger is right, I suppose in that he's saying that white people have stolen everything they have that's from artifacts and stuff. Precisely the point of my channel. It doesn't matter if I think he's right or wrong. I am saying with that clip it is really awkward to shove that into your character, into your movie. It's almost like you're trying to make some kind of meta commentary. I'm not 100% sure of what the film wants to do with that. There's a lot of those lines. It's really awkward to listen to as someone who would find it... It's to explain this to you, Jack.  It's you just you're like, okay, that just happened.  So it's not about me being scared to address these things, whether or not he's accurate is irrelevant.  Like, are they trying to say that you're not getting political enough in your videos? Possibly. Well, you know, if he was political in the opposite direction. Yeah, it's good to be political in my direction, but don't be political in the way I don't like. Yeah, there's so many ways to go about this, but apparently I'm scared to go into a wider lens or something like that. I think that's what he said, which again, it's just like, sure, Jack, whatever you say, man. That's absurd. It's like, all right. These things were not paid for by this woman's ancestors.  The only lens smaller really cares. And that's a recurring joke, by the way, because there's a lot of lines. The colonists colonizer. That's the one, right? That's another thing that happens in a movie that's just like, oh, okay. Just weird considering Wakanda was never colonized. It doesn't even make sense in universe. Women's ancestors, they were stolen just like they saw the, you know, the rest of that would have been colonized places near Wakanda, surely. Are you're suggesting that she would be able to draw that Ross is American and the original Americans would have colonized the Native Americans? But the original Wakandan's... What? I'm just excited for him to say Wakanda because I don't think he said... We're nearly there, are we? Oh, it's Infinity War first, isn't it? No, no, this is the... Oh, fuck, I can't remember. Apparently Jack is waiting for me to explain how my subhuman joke doesn't make me mad. Wait, you don't make me mad. You don't seem mad. Well, I mean, I'm... Is he asking for you to justify the claim or... I don't know. I don't know if... I mean, I'll give... I don't really want to give an answer to that. It doesn't even matter if you're mad or not. I mean, honestly, I've gotten done. He has huge issues with any of the insults or whatever you use. Oh, grow up. Well, no, what I was going to get at is like, Jack is like, you've got to understand fundamentally, Wolf thinks you've done something much, much worse, so it doesn't really matter to him. I don't care about insults, Jack, because I'm an adult. I stopped caring about insults back in the eighth grade. What's his Twitter handle? I haven't... I haven't got, um... Jack's saint, I think. Or lacking saint?  You can't say that. That's an insult and that makes people feel bad. Uh-oh. I'll give his all, get...  I don't care about insults. I care when you lie about people, when you are very disingenuous about them, you misrepresent them and take them out of context. That is much worse.  Grow up. You would apply the exact same criticism back to you. You'd say you need to grow up and stop using those insults. Oh, come on. It's a word. Well, this is the thing. This would be the... It would get to a discussion about ethics and morals and they're not gonna win because they've done something much worse.  It's like... Hey, Jack. It's way more damaging. Jack. Jack, what's worse? Insulting someone or lying about someone? Yeah. I would think everyone over 12 would probably say that it's worse to lie about somebody because that's a substantive thing. God, I want to put them in one of those Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 lobbies where all the eight-year-old British kids are swearing at them. I want to see how long it takes for them to break down and start crying. Are you guys solving? I just want to say, the fact that you have insulted them is just... It feels like they're using it as a way to weasel out of responding to the arguments you've made. Of course, because they don't actually have an argument. They're saying mean things about us. Why should we listen to the things they're saying? You don't have to listen to the insult. You can, however, you can listen to the proof that we've demonstrated live that the things that you say are misrepresentations of positions. You could respond to that in some way. But I'm not going to hold my breath on that. So, let's, uh, we'll cut back in. Contacts from which to view a film. He gets rather flustered when she implies that the artifacts were discovered and corrects her. These things were not paid for by this woman's ancestors.  The only lens Mauler really cares to explore is his own, what he calls the objective analysis. I would say it's two lenses, objective, and then my own personal lens. And I'm not sure that you can consider an objective lens, a lens, but whatever. I think lens in this scenario is kind of a way of seeing things or how you look at something. I guess. Yeah. Um, and I've stood by this for a while. Anyone is capable of being objective and it's not beholden to anyone. As in someone claiming something is objective doesn't mean it's specifically absolutely objective. It depends on what they've said, but everyone is capable of making objective statements. And that again could be a difference in how we approach quote unquote, world views. But you can do it. Or the robot. It's kind of like structuralism, except Mauler just takes it on assumption that whatever he observes as bad is fact here. When he mentions the robot, if nobody watched that stream, I don't think they'd really know what he'd be talking about here. Yeah. Unfortunately, I regret using the robot as an example, because so many people who disagree with me have misused what I intended for it. The purpose of the robot was to try and help just right understand the concept of being objective. So as far as he's concerned, right, a human cannot make an objective claim or opinion, let's say. So what I tried to say to him was you're saying it's by them being human intrinsically prevents it. So let's create a non human entity that can respond to these questions. So that when they come out with an answer and you say, okay, that is an objective opinion because that person is not human. And I'm like, so what if I said that exact same thing as he did? That was going to be the conclusion. It's like thinking of hypothetical people to criticize your work in order to improve it. Yeah. You would use the hypothetical robot to make sure that a story was airtight or that things were consistent. And instead of understanding that, people like Jack, Eric and whoever else have taken it as Mauler thinks that the robot represents a formula for judging film and that we all put the film through the robot and it's not Mauler when Mauler doesn't realize that the robot was him all along. And I'm like, that's not even close to what the purpose of that was. But nice try. You confused. That's my conclusion of this video really. I just want to say that out of everyone that we have ever talked to or discussed or criticized, these two are by far and away the worst. I'm getting that vibe. We're not even a third of the way through.  Oh, not him. I'd say that better than me. I was going to say, it's above J level. Come on. Well, you're an ally now. We don't need to include you. Just drawing back a little bit. Like, man, this makes me almost like want to apologize to Patrick. Patrick, we're so sorry. We thought that you were that bad. You are. But we had no idea the scale that we would be dealing with into the future. And just like they still everything else. The only lens Mauler really cares to explore is his own, what he calls the objective analysis or the robot. It's kind of like structuralism, except Mauler just takes it on assumption that wherever he observes as bad is factually and objectively bad with no deeper consideration. Well, let's see if he has an example. We don't care about how we feel about these things. We're talking about what they are and what they do. And if not, the viewer can. Oh, that's not a very, that then helped. That was a great example. Wow, that doesn't have to do with what he said. Let's try that again. Let's give him another shot. Covered and corrects here. These things were not paid for by this woman's ancestors.  The only lens Mauler really cares to explore is his own, what he calls the objective analysis or the robot. It's kind of like structuralism, except Mauler just takes it on assumption that wherever he... Let me look up structuralism. It's when you don't like structures. Be careful. They're going to tweet about how you don't know what that is off the top. Before your entire organism valid. Yeah, so structuralism, a method of interpretation and analysis of aspects of human cognition, behavior, culture and experience that focuses on relationships of contrast between elements in a conceptual system that reflects patterns underlying a superficial diversity. The doctrine that structure is more important than function. Diversity has come full circle. I mean he didn't elaborate on it, so I guess it's irrelevant anyway. Active analysis or the robot. It's kind of like structuralism, except Mauler just takes it on assumption that whether he observes as bad is... Yeah, he just told us. I wonder how many people in his audience knew what he was referring to when he said structuralism. I would adjubate that it's like 10% at most. Yeah, it's like if I don't know what the word is, I'll google it and find out what the word is. I think even people who've heard of structuralism would still be like, I wonder exactly what he means by that? But he just skips over it. And you could be like, oh, Mauler, typical Mauler asking for the video to be longer and I'm like, I think it would have benefited the video to be a bit longer at that moment. He wants us to define words most people probably don't know. But that would be... He's going to tweet about that. No. The fact that you just said that. Any snipe is possible. I'm the only one he hasn't sniped specifically yet on Twitter. I think that is a pretty clear conclusion that I'm the best. You're the objective one. Yes. Now they're going to snipe at you. By the way, Jack, right, I'm reading through your Twitter, right. And it's fine for you to disagree. Of course, you're going to disagree with someone criticizing you. That's only natural. But it doesn't seem like you're really... Doesn't seem like you're really getting the points that are trying to be put across. It's my impression of what you're tweeting. Wow, Jack, not understanding something. You're just kind of sniping at random little bits without looking at the overall arguments being made. It's... People are only going to see this as an argument if they already agree with you. I don't have anything to add to that. So let's... Yeah. I mean, the point I'm making about structuralism is that it's fine to... When you use words like that, it just generally helps your point if you let us know what it is. You know, I wouldn't assume that people knew what structuralism is. Yeah, it would be nice to encase your sort of using it for a specific purpose. You could at least let us know what it is. If you ask Jack, what do you mean by structuralism? Then he explains a thing that lost just about a paragraph. I'd be like, do you mind putting that in the script, that paragraph, instead of saying it's like structuralism? Or just have it. Again, I don't know. He's not going to listen to me if I suggest he makes the video longer because that's like acid to him. He should be more... He should be more erudite. Someone said, Jay is like Jar Jar Binks. Everyone thinks it's the worst addition, but he's actually behind it all. He does that on the show. No, please don't say JayJay Binks. Don't do that. JayJay Binks. JayJay Binks. JayJay Binks. So sorry, Jay. Why don't I try to discourage him? Dude, that art is going to come. You've got your face on screen. Someone's making you into JayJay Binks. They're just going to have your face, but with those weird eyes and the ears. Oh, poking out the top. If someone does do that, it is becoming avatar. Beowyn. Beowyn, I know you're in the chat. JayJay is the key to all of this. And they move his eyes to the top of his head. This is literally more offensive to me than any playground insult that could have been thrown at me. Oh, I'm just looking out for Beowyn. I know that he's going to hop right on this. But it's kind of like structuralism, except Moola just takes it on assumption that whatever he observes as- God, this fan art is going to- I don't actually, yeah, I don't know enough about structuralism to be like, Oh, so you have to know what it is. You have to have heard of it and you have to understand it and you have to contrast that with something else. It's like, I don't- most people probably not- I find it amusing that he says it takes it on assumption that what I've, blah, blah, blah, is objective. And I'd be like, okay, so the system is, I look at the scene and I detect the things that are in the scene. I present them to an audience. The audience say, yeah, that was in the scene. And the conclusion is completely coherent. Or someone goes, but you missed the red arm thing in TFA. And then I look at that. I run the information again. I'm like, fuck, I was wrong. Or, yep, that criticism stands the test of time, which the majority of the stuff in my TLJ stuff does.  Because he doesn't talk about the TLJ critique again. It's only Eric, I think, that talks about it now. It blows my mind how much self-awareness you do not have.  No? Okay. I will say. That's odd, but no. I don't think it's silly. I just never heard of it. Lisa won a rhino milk. Jack, your Twitter avatar is great. Change your content and keep that avatar. I agree. I like his Twitter avatar. Analysis or the robot. It's kind of like structuralism, except Moeller just takes it on assumption that whatever he observes as bad is factually and objectively bad with no deeper consideration. We don't care about how we feel about these things. We're talking about what they are and what they do. That example specifically goes against this point. That's what we're saying here, I think. He's removing his feelings from the equation. He's trying to find the truth, essentially. Yeah, he says, oh, Moeller only cares about what he feels, and then plays a clip of Moeller saying, I don't actually care about how I feel. That is interesting. Yeah. And is that the best example he could find to prove this? I think he thinks that that clip proves that I'm delusional. Well, as if to say what I've just said isn't even possible to talk about it without my feelings or whatever. Maybe. I'm giving you as much benefit of the doubt as I can at this point. The other interesting sort of aspect is that, I don't know, the idea that I can be wrong is something that I often and loudly proclaim, but there's no element of that here that he's letting in. Because there's this thing that goes around that objective means 100% undeniably correct.  And then I'm like, I hate everything. Where did you even get this from? And he's like, well, I haven't seen any videos. And I was like, so where did you get it from? He's like, I couldn't. It's like, oh, that makes sense.  Is it not a testament to why we have to respond to these Tizmy videos? I mean, it is. But still, oh, don't don't put Georgia milk in the chat. You can't give them, you can't, like, tell them. Don't do it. Squeeze the titties. I tried to I tried to save them from looking up xenomorphs and Google images. And I did that. I know I did that. And it I did not find anything bad until like I found something slightly dodgy and I was incredibly disappointed by how I'm going to go to Xenomorph images. Did you spell Xenomorph correctly? Probably not. But I know, of course I did because if I didn't, Google would have picked up on it. I mean, there's none really. There's Batman, Batman, Batman fighting a Xenomorph. H.R. Geiger pictures. I don't think that's what I was paying attention for. We don't care about how we feel about these things. We're talking about what they are and what they do. And if not, that the viewer can immediately distinguish between his opinions and his objective analysis. Between his opinions and his objective analysis. It's all opinions. Some of them are objective. Went over this in the TFA video. He even knows how I define all these words. And he's like not not approaching this honestly. He's not like, okay, some more refers to this as objective. This is that. And this is why he's wrong because of these contradictions and then moves on. He's just immediately like that more sees himself as making objective criticism versus opinions.  You're like, I don't know. It would have been nice if you threw that in because I know he's seen the video. And if not, that the viewer can immediately distinguish between his opinions and his objective analysis. But why am I chattering on when there's cases to study? Let's have a look at Infinity War. So we got length of video, 52 minutes, time spent summarizing Infinity War, 36 minutes, time spent summarizing previous Marvel films, 10 minutes, time spent drawing actual conclusions about Infinity War, six minutes. And then he's got comments that are basically saying, wow, this is just a plot summary. This is all just a plot summary, plot summary, plot summary. So this is probably a good time to sort of talk about the whole idea of plot summary. But let's let him talk a little bit, I guess. The reality is it's almost reasonable.  Is it EFAT podcast talk? No, no, no, no, post it to my Twitter, just at me on Twitter with it. I post them in the Discord after, usually. No, no, Beowyn's trying to get a reference for him. Oh. Is the EFAT podcast talk in your Discord? Oh, yeah, yeah, post it. Yeah, yeah, so everyone go to Jay's channel, like open up a new tab. I'll just change my avatar to a very real picture of me. A very real. Very real, actually real. Is it going to be very real, though? Yes. Are you sure? It's not going to be Thrump, is it? It's already Thrump. I wouldn't have to change it if it was Thrump. There's so many different styles of Thrump, though. Thrump. Thrump. You see, I was going to make a joke here, but I'm not sure what it's going to be yet.  People just go to Jay's channel and put the, if you're in Mahler's Discord, then put the Jay pictures in the EFAT chat, and then Beowyn will make JJBinks. There you go. So I'm going to let this go away. Galadies is often disappointing. I mean, it's Infinity War. All these fans have probably already seen it. And no, those last... Wait, so if you can't make a video, if his fans have already seen it? I'm actually in favor of people having watched the movie before watching my videos on them anyway. So I don't... Were you saying a plot? I think you're saying a plot somewhere is unnecessary if you've already seen it. Yeah, which clearly me and him have different ideas on what the purpose of a plot summary is. Yeah, and there's a lot of people who like might be interested in knowing about the movie or who want to get caught up or maybe they just don't have the time or they're not that interested in going to the theater and all that. Remember scenes the way that they are. Exactly, the disappearing knife. Who noticed that the first time? What percentage of people? Yeah, so like it's just... Well, we're going to jump into that in a moment. It's Infinity War. All these fans have probably already seen it. And no, those last six minutes really don't go anywhere. There's not even an argument. What is this? Well, just so keep it in the air. The last six minutes don't go anywhere. Sad bits made him sad. By the way, the funny bits made him long. The sad bits made him sad. The funny bits made him long. And concludes that the film is objectively good because it's good at elaborating on stuff from previous Marvel film. Interestingly, I never say objectively in the video. I do in my critiques because I'm more serious about the analysis on that. A praise as commented on in the video, so I know you've seen it, is an assessment that doesn't cover any flaws, just like how a rage is an assessment that doesn't cover any positives, I suppose you could say. Jay, someone described what you looked like in the chat. This would be flattering, right? Yes, he looks like... Better than lacking saints, so don't worry. Well, he said he looks like Garth from Wayne's World, but born with cerebral palsy. That's a playground insult, which means I can't talk to you anymore.  I've changed my avatar to a very real picture of me. This is what I... Don't insult my manager. This is what I feel like on the inside. What you feel like and what you are are two different things.  So just FYI for... It'll be relevant. All of this is going to be relevant. That's a mark of objective quality, by the way. Sucks if you wanted to enjoy it as its own movie. So the suggestion that Infinity War is keeping in consistency and developing the films that came before it is a mark of objective quality. And he said, Pity, if you wanted to just see it as its own movie, I don't know what he thinks that he's saying.  Who is this guy with the magic? My flatmate did that. I mean, come on, that is... That's retarded. He watched a Marvel summary of all the other movies first. I'm not sure why that's how he decided to do it. Showed it. I mean... Said he liked it. I mean, go and watch Captain America Winner and try and tell me it makes sense without watching the first Captain America or Iron Man 2 or Thor 3. The Civil War. Or literally any sequel to anything ever.  Are you? Obviously. You are? There's three of us now.  All three of you are bi. I'm the minority. Oh my gosh, so are you saying... Molly, you're the diversity hire. Wolf and Jay and Molly are gay. They're what? Yes. Wow, that's incredible. I can't believe I'm the only straight person in the room. This is kind of awkward that normally... I don't... This doesn't normally happen, but I had no idea this whole...  I had no idea this whole was what I heard there. Uh... Right, anyway. So yeah, let's just play this out because we're going to be jumping over to my Infinity War video and then comparing his statements. That's a mark of objective quality, by the way. Sucks if you wanted to enjoy it as its own movie. Now, as I said before, it's not the length of all this content in and of itself. Wait, sorry. I think we've probably gone far enough actually. So yeah, he summarized it as... Sad bits make me sad. The funny bits make me lull. And the film is objectively good because it's good at elaborating on stuff from previous Marvel movies. And the majority of it is either summarizing plot or summarizing plot from previous films. That's his take. I'm not necessarily suggesting at this very moment that it's an inaccurate take because it could be down to semantics. But we're going to check out... Six minutes of my video on Infinity War because he specified six minutes and it's going from the moment the plot summary ends. Um... Well, sorry. It's confusing to what he's referring to because the final section goes from 34 minutes onwards and he said six minutes so I don't exactly know what he's talking about. So I'm assuming it's the part... I don't know. Well, the section I'm showing you, it's going to be relevant in terms of what I assume he's trying to say. But yeah, this feels embarrassing sometimes because I'm just like showing my video but the point is to sort of explain why he's got a bad take on it not just to be like, guys watch my video. So here goes according to my timestamp it ends at 50-50 so it's the longest take. It's horrific. The powerful intelligent and heroic vision dies as a man. But perhaps the most impactful moment goes to a particularly powerful road being drawn to its close. Tony Stark has been through a lot in his series of films finding that he must balance his urge to protect Earth while living the life of a man. Well, what if I didn't? If you didn't, you mean when you finished? Leading him to protect his power, nuke his power, automate his power, submit his power, and finally to keep it as insurance to maintain a safety net if ever he or his loved ones were attacked but never in pursuit. Once he knows that this coming attack is what he's been waiting for for six years, what's sent him into anxiety attacks, what has consumed him since he saw his vision. He fights it to the point of leaving Earth's solar system and to the realization that Pepper, the person he loves the most, will never come between him and his will to prevent the suffering on a universal scale. This is very much the reflection of Thanos himself. With all that happening it's tough to realize that Tony has also dealt with the fact that his dad didn't love him as much as his work, his mother, or himself. Hell, he loved Cap more. Tony then sees the tape in Iron Man 2 that tells him his dad considered him his greatest achievement and his work was all intended to be left to him. His dad absolutely loved him. Tony couldn't share any real moments of closure or love with his father despite his desperation because they were killed by Hydra in attempt to steal his formula. This destroyed what made Tony so callous as a man in the first place. He needed to reevaluate the man he'd become. Moving on to Civil War, he treats Peter as his surrogate son, brings him in only to tell him to leave the second he is visibly hurt. Tony is looking to ignite that lost flame to get that relationship he's pined for his whole life, taking a positive step in that direction. In Homecoming, he keeps him in what is essentially a box despite Spider-Man's raw strength.  Mr. Parker, got a sec? Uh, I'm actually at school. No, you're not. Nice work in DC. My dad never really gave me a lot of support and I'm just trying to break the cycle of change. I'm kind of in the middle of something right now.  Great things are about that. What is that? Uh, I'm at band practice. That's odd. Happy told me he quit band six weeks ago. When Peter succeeds, he congratulates him, shares with him that he always wanted this kind of relationship with his father, that he's proud of what he's doing. But then to subvert Tony's security, he lies while trying to get involved in something Tony told him to stay away from. Peter wanted to go behind Tony's back and avoid what was essentially his protection, his care. I tell you to stay away from this. Instead, you hacked a multimillion dollar suit so you could sneak around behind my back doing the one thing I told you not to do. Those weapons were out there and I tried to tell you about it, but you didn't listen. None of this would have happened if you had just listened to me. Do you know that I was the only one who believed in you? Everyone else said I was crazy to recruit a 14 year old kid. He was furious and he took the gear back. Peter didn't deserve to have it if he wanted to thrill seek. But Peter saves the day and Iron Man's actual equipment from Vulture without a suit and reasserting that he only wants to do good. Lying was the way that he saw an opportunity for it and that's why he did it. Peter is reinstated and their relationship is strong once again. In Infinity War he decides to help because he can. Despite Iron Man's attempt to stop him, he even goes on what can be assumed as a one way trip because he wants to help people. What if somebody had died tonight? Different story, right? Because that's on you. And if you died, I feel like that's on me. I don't need that on my conscience. Tony wants him gone because the last thing he can bear is watching the kid get hurt. And so echoing the dream he has in the opening about a child with a woman he loves called Morgan taken away in a moment. Tony has to watch as Peter is slowly turned to ash in his arms begging to stay with him. All in a handful of seconds Tony loses one of his Avengers. He sees an innocent boy trying to save lives perish. But most importantly, he has that new and loving fatherly connection severed again. And there was nothing he could do to stop it. But it falls on him. Everything falls on Tony Stark's conscience as he was alive to stop it and he couldn't. Tony now loses the son he never had, the team he built to protect the world and the universe itself. Nothing he could build or prepare could prevent it after six years of it festering in his head his nightmare has broken through. Tony is frozen, unable to emote. He couldn't accept it before and now it's real. Everything has fallen apart. This is it. Pair all of this with Tom Holland's heart-wrenching performance selling a Peter Parker that has begun to feel death coming after watching all the people he just saved into ash. He begs Tony not to let him go again and again while failing to stand. Fading away in his arms. The scene was incredible. The film itself was a culmination of many running stories and characters dealing with very human grief and disturbing events reaching conclusions simultaneously that could rival any kind of television series finale. Covering strong patterns of family, love, sacrifice, and death. Characters giving in to the destruction of the universe to save the suffering of their brothers or sisters. Families coming to save the day only to be torn to shreds. Many characters having to sacrifice what they have come to love for the greater good and the death, the rampant cold death of so many beloved characters. The credits of this film play like an obituary. The audience was dead silent. A respectful end to a defeating story that still has more to come. This began with Iron Man but the original Avengers revealed the potential of this series.  Each dealing with their own issues while being set up to save the day. To pass over the Marvel mantle to the new heroes that have been lost. This isn't just a celebration of one film and its achievement to bring together so many other properties with weight behind them. This is a celebration of what has been accomplished with 10 years of character writing. 10 years of trying to create something that people could become enamored with. This spans completely different personality types, completely different plots, completely different settings, completely different worlds. Directors having their style blasted through with writing having space and quality to shine. Incredible performances combined with special effects to support this comic book world's realism. All of this took talent, time, effort and passion.  Drama and comedy are a tough balance but throughout Marvel's series they have shown they're gonna shift it in one way or the other. With Infinity War being no exception. This is not an entirely morbid affair and it does benefit from that. I'm Peter by the way. Thoughts are strange. Oh, I'm using your made-up names. Then I am Spider-Man. You said we are going to open Wakanda to the rest of the world. This is not what I imagined. What did you imagine? The Olympics. Maybe even a Starbucks. Cool. So cool. We have Rabbit, Tree, Squidward, Blanket of Death, Kicknames and Take Ass. I am Steve Rogers, the baby of a pirate and an angel. What was she doing up there the whole time? I'm gonna blow that nutsack of a chin right off and who could forget? This film was an event. A triumph. Each of the crew and cast involved deserve a pat on the back for bringing a 10-year path to an incredible peak. I can't even tell you about all of the amazing details this film has, aside from what I've already discussed. Nor will I share any flaws. I don't know if you noticed, but this assessment is extremely biased in one specific direction to complement my other recent work. In- And there we go. Apparently Jack's getting a little bent out of shape by the fact that we just watched all that. Yeah, he's tweeted apparently that apparently not all of that was actual conclusions. Apparently he met six minutes spread across the whole video. Okay. That's what he's tweeted. Whatever, Jack. So what do you think the overall point? What is your take on what you've just seen? My take is that I'd like you to narrate audio, please. My I think the way you're trying to get across here is that I think you almost said it. I might just be re quoting you because you kind of say it yourself. This is a culmination of previously established events. And if you don't bring those events, you know, to the forefront, if you don't tell people, this is what's happened. This is what happened here. It took us 10 years to get here. And this is the result of all those things happening. This is the payoff for all the setup for all the development. So it is extremely important that all of that stuff that happened before is taken along with this. I don't know if anyone else wants to say anything because I was just going to say the idea, because that's just one of the sections, I do a character assessment for all of the strongest ones in the film from my perspective, which are Thanos, Thor, Iron Man, Vision. And not necessarily because of Vision's relationship with Wanda, but Vision as a character himself, what he's gone through from age of Ultron up to now. And they're all basically, you could argue that I am recanting plot from previous films. You can do that, but I think it's dishonest because there's a reason I'm presenting all of these specific events in a row because they tell a very strong story that's been what you could call in the subtext because of all of these events taking place and these over, because that conversation that Tony's having with Peter when he's on the barge, it's almost funny. But then when you actually listen to the words where he says my relationship with my dad, like he's going on about that, it's like that's extremely important, but it informs so much of the arc that's happening. So it's, if you've missed it, I am presenting it again and I'm explaining why it's important. That's the purpose of all of this. That's what the plot summary is doing. It's presenting this stuff to you and then I explain to you why it's important. That's always been my goal. I'm not saying I nail it. That is the purpose. Is this the twirling? This isn't the drawing. It's like a preview, though. Oh, my God. Oh, my Jesus, dear Lord. What an extra reason. Just imagine when Bayowin's done, it'll be even better. What a palette cleanser that was from what we just watched.  I think you add bits, which is good because you don't have any bones. Oh, yeah, it's true. Ice cream doesn't have bones. Neither do ears or eyes. Hey, you can't say that ice cream doesn't have bones. That's a generalization. Just because you have bones. Fine, fine, fine. I'll qualify that. No ice cream that I've ever eaten has had bones in it. And if I had ice cream, well, if there was a bone in my ice cream, I would be surprised. I would have questions. Have you ever had salmon? You like the bone in the ice cream. I know the way to the bone ice cream. Yeah, if you do not like it, then you know the way to the DCBY down the street. So, again, by the way, he said that it doesn't really have any overall point. I thought the point was very clear. It was explicit. Yeah, you pretty much say it verbatim. And to be honest, I haven't actually watched your unbridled praise video yet. That was the first time of me watching that. You're not a true fan. Oh, here's the thing. That was like, that made me... I'm sentimental deep down, and that made me get kind of misty eyed. Oh, that's a couple, but... No, like that really, like thinking about the characters, and that was really, really good. Everyone type... Everyone give rags a hug in the chat. Everyone press F for my happiness. I'm going to throw more. Hashtag happy rags. But no, I don't watch... There's a lot of videos I just don't watch. That's just one of them that I just haven't seen. But I am a sensitive soul, actually. I'm very sentimental. So am I.  This objective robot made me teary eyed. Yeah, I mean... You should see me when I watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy back to back, or when I play Ori in the Blind Forest. It's like, oh man, I feel like I need to punch somebody to feel like a man again. Oh, man. That's toxic masculinity. Oh, feelings! Was I being ironic? Was I not? You decide. So, yeah, we'll kick on. I think I've gone and drawn it back enough so we can hear his points again now, having seen that context. He observes as bad, is factually and objectively bad, with no deeper consideration. We don't care about how we feel about these things, we're talking about what they are. It's made him sad. The funny bits have probably already seen it. And no, those last six minutes really don't go anywhere. He said last six minutes, so he's clearly not talking about a collective six minutes. That's true, actually. You can't... Sorry, Jack. You can't change the past. You can't change the story. Moira says the sad bits made him sad. You can't change the past. You can kill it if you have to. So, I once said he looks like a skinny T.J. Kirk. Oh, that's the song. I kind of see it, yeah. Yeah, if you make him... I can see that. Yeah, I can see that. I can see that. Yeah. Gemblond hair. That's insulting to T.J. I don't know, because it's like over the side of his glasses, and then he's got the bun thingy up in the back going on. Yeah, it's a strange hairdo. It is a strange hairdo. It is unusual. Don't sully T.J.'s name. He said that hair was unusual. I like his hair. Okay, I think it's a lot better than his argument. I think it's interesting. I think his hair is actually better than his arguments. Not that that's a high bar, but... My lack of hair is better than his argument. Yeah. Sorry. Did you do the creamy sheave? He just said, Hey, baller and wolf. I loved your Fallout 76 video. Hey, wolf. I like this one. Hey, baller and wolf. I loved your Fallout 76 video. Give us money, because you both deserve it for all the hard work. Love your boy, creamy sheave. Employee that I'm getting a decent one. Is he in on the meme at that point? Because that was in the global breed stream. I'm sure he's a great guy, and you guys really deserve it. So back to bald people. Wish I am. Matthew just said he made a list of times he interpreted your content. That's what the six minutes is referring to. I think at least. He said he just said the last six minutes. Like we'll play it again. It's infinity war. All these fans have probably already seen it. And no, those last six minutes really don't go anywhere. Moola says... And look what the visuals are.  They don't go anywhere while you're talking about how the characters are affected across 10 different movies. Yeah. This is what I mean. I was proud of my infinity war video because it's a lot of passion. Because I am a MCU fanboy.  I literally despise Iron Man 3. But I get totally invested in it. Civil War is the peak for me. I was so invested in that final fight. And I'll try and make a video eventually to explain why I think it's so well put together. But this was something I took seriously at the infinity war video. I was like, I want to really make sure I explain why I think these are so amazing in terms of arcs that go over so much time. But yeah, this is his take on that. Probably already seen it. And no, those last six minutes really don't go anywhere. Moola says the sad bits made him sad. The funny bits made him lol. And concludes that the film is objectively good because it's good at elaborating on stuff from previous Marvel films. That's a mark of objective quality. I am so, so sorry, Jack. That that's what you took away from this. I am I am legit. I legitimately pity you. I'm so sorry that that's that's how you what you took away from that.   How do you come away from that last six minutes thinking that there was nothing there? I mean, I feel like I would have to like shoot myself in the head to be on par with Jack at this point. Not a rooster's ride.  Let's just watch Molly's video. He by the way, you could have a meme break as its own movie. Wait, sorry. Right. And concludes that the film is objectively good because it's good at elaborating on stuff from previous Marvel films. That's a mark of objective quality, by the way. Sucks if you wanted to enjoy it as its own movie. Now, as I said before, it's not the length. Yeah, you can. I don't know what you're talking about, Jack. Like, yeah, you can. Consistency for a character is objectively good craftsmanship for storytelling. If you're not following this, like, whatever. Yeah, you can enjoy it regardless. Even if you even if we never agreed on the objective quality of alluding to previous things was that has no impact on whether or not you can enjoy it. Do you think that every person who went to see Infinity War who liked it had seen all of those movies beforehand? Plus that's even if he's right, that's not a counter to anything you've said. Exactly, they're two different things. Oh yeah, well, I liked it. Length of Moorler's content in and of itself that's the problem. In fact, maybe it isn't a problem if Moorler just wants to use this for that. It's up to him. It might be incredibly tedious for- It's generous of him to give you that. Yeah, at least Jack gave you the green light to use your own format. Thanks, Jack. I sure said thanks, Dad. Wanted to enjoy it as its own movie. Now, as I said before, it's not the length of Moorler's content in and of itself that's the problem. In fact, maybe it isn't a problem- Jack saved the farmer of straw men. It's like an old field of straw men. With these, I shall build my enemies. Problem, if Moorler just wants to use this for that, it's up to him. It might be incredibly tedious for me, but certainly many people may like it. Oh, many people may like it. It seems like he agrees with the whole subjective objective thing, doesn't he? Yeah, some people may like it. Some people is in like about 70,000 more subs than you have. Well, here's the thing. He can't say it, or else he'll lose all of his friends, or he'll turn into enemies now. You can't make this about numbers, especially since he has more subs than me. I like what? How big is his channel? I never heard of him before. 42K. Oh, how? I haven't seen his other videos, or Eric's, like I said. I don't know the quality of their channels. I'm just not impressed with what I've seen. Yeah, maybe they just hit 42K. So who knows? I literally just hit 42K in the process of this stream. Remember, this is you. This guy. I just want to remind everyone, this guy made a half-hour video about why he doesn't like the NPC meme. Oh, oh, okay. I like the NPC meme. I find it funny. Thanks for kind of helping the point of a meme by making a video devoted on why you don't like it. It's kind of the same thing as when HBOMMA guy was like, you know, the soy boy meme? It's not even accurate.  Don't you mean Paul Joseph Watson? There were people making this. What did I say? Or Joe Paul Joseph Watson. Joe Paul? Joe Paul? Joe Paul? Joe Paul? Joe Paul? Joe Paul? It's like, it's kind of a meme that the left doesn't get memes, but. Prove a meme wrong factually, and then the meme dies, and it's like, that's not what happens. No. Never will happen. Every political orientation says other political orientations don't get memes. I'm not. No, I actually, I think that the left meme challenge.  Like, obviously that's going to happen too. Yeah, the left can't meme. But like, the NPC meme, as I understood it, is applied to anybody who barks like a political, or a response that's usually in a political conversation. It could apply to someone on the right or the left, but the left got super offended by it, and it's like, oh, so it's implying that they're like, this is already about us. That's how I always understood it. I was like, but it's on the right as well, because they can do it. You know, the right, say, SJW, SJW, that would be the NPC vision. Tim Poole's done some good videos on memes and how they spread on the internet and the left, and it's interesting, but I think there's a lot of truth to the generalization.  Well, maybe it's a good video. We haven't seen it. You don't know what we're going to do. Oh, my God. If this video is indicative of everything we've made, I don't think I want to. It'd be a good video. In fact, maybe it isn't a problem. If Moeller just wants to use this for that, it's up to him. It might be incredibly tedious for me, but... Also, don't fret. This video is going to get much faster, because once Eric comes back on, a lot of the stuff that he says is very agreeable or quick to approach. Do you have the sensors ready? Don't spoil anything. I got to make sure you remember, we got to protect our... It's not mine to write off as an artistic choice. As the format from which to hang the argument for your case, the interesting part of arguing about art, not so much, at least not the way this time is utilized. Thanks for qualifying that. Oh, that's just fantastic. I believe this is the qualification. Yeah, but this is not... Okay, I'll have to explain why this isn't a qualification. Let me play it in full, so it's not said that we didn't. From which to hang the argument for your case, the interesting part of arguing about art, not so much, at least not the way this time is utilized. That's just fantastic. That's just a fantastic comedic line. Brilliant. You may or may not know, in my rage videos, I usually have a portion where I say that's just silly, at least four times around that, in a row, I go, I state a thing and I say, that's just silly. And someone could be like, but Moeller, you're not qualifying why they're silly. You're just saying they're silly. I'd be like, oh yeah, I think that they're so silly that I don't need to qualify and it's a part of the entertainment factor. So I understand that you have a valid perspective on that, but again, these are unbridled rages. They're supposed to be entertainment first, running through several perspectives. So me asking questions in a funny manner is actually a part of the entertainment value. He was the one who made the sky high as fascist video. I haven't seen that. So in the praise, when I was constructing the praise video, I was like, how can I make it an inverse of rage in more ways than one? And I was like, well, you know the parts where I say, that's just silly. What can I say instead? And I was like, what about that's just fantastic? You know, just declaring that the thing is good without explaining it. And now, unfortunately for Jackie, he's probably not aware of that being a structural element. So he's assumed that that's me trying to explain my point. You know, and I'm declaring something's fantastic. The irony being that he's already done this to my videos in this video, he's shown a clip and just said that's bad moving on. And it's just like, okay. Nope. But the more important part that it's a joke, I'm saying that's fantastic as if to imply. I'm just laughing at that. That's funny as Rags pointed out. But the important parts, so characters going on long arcs and experiencing thematically relevant journeys, I explain all of that explicitly. I don't explain the joke to you. That's true. I don't explain why a joke is funny. That could be tough sometimes. It's yeah, it's a little explaining why you find things funny. But this is another problem. Why you find things like sexually attractive.  And they go, yeah, he's great.  And when it comes to films, he likes, he just says this is good and moves on. And then the person you're talking to will be like, no, he doesn't know. And they'll be like, you need to see Jack Saints video. And then they go, you need to see Jack Saints video being responded to. And that's the process. I like that someone put in Jack Saint in the chat with a bunch of NPC style. Yeah, this is again, the reoccurring theme of this video is that he's mixed up rages and critiques. And we'll get to his response to that at the end. Like I said, doesn't the fact it's got themes make it good? I agree with you. Actually, this video has themes. Therefore, it's a crit. Irrecritable. That's a word now. It means you can't criticize it. Everything that I make into the future, by the way, we'll have a theme, even if I don't mention it. Or if it seems. If I just say it's the theme of inaccuracy. No, the best way to convey a theme is to literally just say the theme in the movie. I've always liked that because I don't like to think it annoys me. Someone's going to get that out of context.  Kids are annoying. Damn them. Yeah, let's keep going. Infinity War is admittedly a kind of unfair example. Moola really does phone this one in. It's just running through the film seen by... Damn. So this is a genuine response to this.  Simple as that. I worked really hard on that video. And it's something that I consider a little closer to me for media than a lot of standard pieces of media. I don't know. I really care about Tony Stark's journey. And so the portion I showed you was what I consider to be the crown jewel of the part of the film that I really enjoyed. And then I move into talking about it as a whole. And he's just like, he phoned it in. It's like, thanks, man. So you can phone in and make better content than he can? Trying? I would never claim that. Is that what the theme of that statement was? I guess. What else can we draw?  And do back to him what he likes to do with our work, right? Why not? Saying the bits he liked. I guess maybe he thought the more of his video was taken up by summar