Super Mario Bros. & the Death of Film Criticism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 кві 2023
- The Super Mario Bros. Movie is being torn apart by critics, especially when you look at the Critic Score on Rotten Tomatoes, but fans will tell you that The Super Mario Bros. Movie is anything but Rotten.
So why then is their such a divide between Critics and Audiences? And is film critique fundamentally flawed if critics can't appreciate an animated film dedicated to Nintendo's Favorite Plumber (sorry Luigi...).
Note: This is not meant as a review of Illumination's The Super Mario Bros. Movie. Rather, a look at how it points out a fundamental flaw in the art of film criticism, and Rotten Tomatoes specifically.
I'm Dylan and THIS is The Writer's Block (like the one's Mario and Luigi break, get it!)
Music Credits:
Music by Slip.stream - chief. "new space" - slip.stream/tracks/ad8b1404-b...
Music by Slip.stream - Purrple Cat "Fake Mustache" - slip.stream/tracks/cb1dbdb2-1...
Music by Slip.stream - Kupla "Afterglow" - slip.stream/tracks/21508c7a-4...
Music by Slip.stream - Purrple Cat "Lullaby" - slip.stream/tracks/e0481ea4-0...
Music by Slip.stream - Purrple Cat "Nocturne" - slip.stream/tracks/ad616474-c...
Music by Slip.stream - Mu'gambi "Sunset in Ipanema (Por do sol em Ipanema)" - slip.stream/tracks/0563f1e3-d...
Written & Edited ----------------- Dylan Gregory @TheWritersBlockOfficial - Фільми й анімація
Were the CRITICS right about THE SUPER MARIO BROS. Movie???
Hell no!!
Don't always believe critics most of them are like Squidward who doesn't grow up with their lives
I don't always agree with critics. I have my own opinions always regardless. But I'm with the critics on this one. Extremely mid movie, mid character development, mid plot, and not funny enough.
@@A-Dubs398 exactly!!!1 it was the same for no way home, pure fanservice. this movie is honestly bad
Super Mario is a crowd-pleaser. It's humorous, a love-letter to fans, and a work that's true to the game series it's a part of. When you mentioned the source material never being driven by narrative I take that as one of the only considerable sources to judge the film for, as it's been a part of Mr. Miyamoto's game design philosophy to veer away from story elements in favor of sensory ones. That's great for platformers, but Paper Mario---
6:30
"The audience watched the Super Mario Bros. Movie expecting to see the Super Mario Bros. Movie; Critics watched the Super Mario Bros. Movie expecting to see Citizen Kane."
Sums up the whole situation perfectly.
Omega level cope
Fr bro.
@@jamjon6616 Euclid level
Doesn't seem to be any evidence of that. He makes a good point about the problem with Rotten Tomatoes' scoring system, but a lot of this video seems to be a guy acting like he can read critics' minds because he can't imagine that someone might have legitimate reasons for not liking a movie he likes.
@@adamdavis1648 That would work for an argument against the audience opinions, but that is a terrible and backwards defense of the critic. The critic's role is to analyze the film for why I, the viewer, would like or dislike the film and what value I would get out it. So if the critic is being defended on the basis of why *they* liked it or not, it's more damaging than any criticism could have been as you've conceded they've utterly failed in their roles as a critic.
Actually, at least one critic review made it clear that they literally didn't watch the same movie as the audience. Grace Randolph complained that, among other things, that the mushroom kingdom is never named (it was), that the parts of the movie that took place in Brooklyn were in a realistic style that didn't match the rest of the movie (wtf? It was all CGI animated and all matched), that Bowser forcing peach to marry him is wrong in this metoo era (he's the VILLAIN!) and that the entire movie was just about who got to date peach (again wtf is she on about?)
Actually um as far as I can recall there was never any real indication mario was interested in princess peach romanticly to be Fair I feeling hardly anyone points out that little detail that the male hero was never trying to impress peach in any romantic way at least none that I can recall. I mean there was literally no romantic moments with peach and mario in the movie.
@@thewewguy8t88Which is more reason that the Critic made it all up
Drugs.
@@thewewguy8t88 The implications were that people thought Mario was interested but he actually wasn't. Aside from the introduction because he wouldn't expect another human as their princess, the classic love at first sight is the only time he might have. The rest were Bowser, DK and Toad talking about the ship.
What's next batman movies are bad because the joker blows up shit with bombs and that's "wrong in this era" or because batman punches Harley Quinn and "she's a girl dude wtf" lmao how are these people "critics" they sound just like the woke twitter babies that call you sexist/racist/something phobic lol
Sometimes, a good classical pizza from the Italian guy feels good. Eating fancy all the time is boring eventually.
Audience: Mmmh! this pizza was delicious!😋
Rotten tomato: the pizza was basic, it lacked pule cheese and black-leg ham. 😒
Audience:.. dude... it's a pizza. Don't overthink it.
Also, cheese pizza just rocks so hard. Like, just because its simple, doesn't mean its not deep. You get a good Cheese pizza, with just the right balance of salty and savory, and there's NO NEED for additional toppings. Being able to nail simple is often much harder than adding complexity
I used spaghetti but yeah
More like dominos really
That's a brilliant metaphor
@@redyosh9811 dominos didn't do well in Italy, do you think the Mario movie is going to flop in Japan?
One of my main issues with Rotten Tomatoes is that it has a lot of reviews from critics who aren’t the target audience. Last year when The Batman released, there were reviews of that that called it “Too dark” which is just insane! Rotten Tomatoes operates under the assumption that every movie is for everyone, and it promotes movies with broad appeal (like why almost every MCU movie has a positive critics score on Rotten Tomatoes). Rotten Tomatoes is a good tool for telling if a movie is universally enjoyable or awful, but it works better in broad strokes, not when dealing with non-universally loved or hated movies.
Great point. With video games, a site like IGN will assign fans of a given genre to review the newest game so they know what they're talking about
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial that’s cool! I think the score for the Mario movie would be a lot higher if it were only reviewed by fans (admittedly that might be what the audience score is)
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial please don’t tell me you just complemented ign…. Many times they have screwed and have been biased as hell
@@snesmocha IGN is the video game equivalent of film critics with criticism like deducting points for "too much water"
I almost felt these ff years these critics played favoritism than giving them a fair score based on how they feel they like it (like the times below 2014s, everything was still fresh). But looking on how the pattern goes its either something else is going on instead.
Rotten Tomatoes used to be good and fair, sometimes I don’t agree with the critics in between but compared to the present day now, majority of them seem lived under the rock or were too picky how it should been scored because their political preference.
The movie stayed true to the games. That is why the audience rates it so high. It is for a specific audience and it plays perfectly to that audience. I knew critics didn't get it when one critic who shall remain nameless was freaked out when Mario was in a cat costume. She pondered whether the film was playing to "furries". My first thought was that she clearly never played the games because once you collected the super bell you had cat Mario. ;) Another critic was concerned about Mario in a dress, so clearly they didn't realize that one could play Mario in a wedding dress if you collected wedding dress in-game (not that most people did so ;)
But... Mario didn't wear a dress in the movie.
@@AnonymOus-ss9jj It was a comment in a review.
@@AnonymOus-ss9jjyeah lol it's not Ralph wrecks the internet 😂
Lmao.
those idiots dont know shit how to review a movie lol
These kind of stands are the reason why you shouldn’t always let random people online judge your own opinion on movie
Yes.
but my opinion is that the movie is genuinely awful
@@paperplate3995 who
The movie is dogshit, you all just like dangling keys and can't see that this corporate and formulaic movie treats you like an idiot
@bustynoodle me-
The Mario movie's few flaws were that it WAS too short. I'd love it to have been longer
Origin stories are usually a little bare.
I would rather it be short and leave me wanting more, as opposed to being too long and leave me wanting it to be over.
@@mainstreetsaint36 fair enough just like 15-20 minutes extra to give scenes more room to breathe. It was so fast paced 😅
@@shivasthong4924 it felt more crowded than bare. It was stuffed to capacity with references
@@dissonanceparadiddle 5 or 10 extra minutes would have been more than enough really, if you were to ask me.
The use of the scene from The Chef was brilliant. I love that movie.
Its so good. John Favreau might be one of the most underrated directors out there. Casually nailing every genre he creates in
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial I thought the Mario movie has a moderately good amount of info we need to know about the characters: Mario is a headstrong character who persevered to help save a kingdom, even for his appetite for food; Luigi is a fearful guy, that needs help from his brother when it comes to facing unfamiliar territory; Toad is childish and very loyal to his princess, even if he could get hurt; Peach is an intelligent monarch who strategizes what should be done about a dangerous scenario, despite her capabilities; Donkey Kong is a stubborn gorilla who likes to ridicule Mario in a playful manner; and Bowser is a tyrannical dragon turtle who not only has a cult who worships him, but also has an unhealthy obsession with interspecies romance with the Mushroom Princess. Sometimes simplicity helps tell the story, even if you want to expand their characterization.
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial The Chef is one of my favorite movies.
Have you seen Chef?
Yeah it's a good movie
Mad Max Fury Road. Sometimes a movie can have the simplest, white bread story out there but still be considered a masterpiece if the spectacle is mindblowingly engaging. I feel like Mario is in that same boat.
Mad max was very well received critically.
lol isn't mad max: fury road considered by critics as one of the greatest films of the 2010s lol
@@hyunstealth32104 yes but has been also called "live action road runner" and "popcorn flick"
@@TheAcharyaa when did i say it wasnt? I was saying that even though the story was very straight forward. The spectacle alone is enough to call it a mastetpiece.
Ain't no fucking way you just compared one of the most legendary action films of the 21st century to the Mario Movie lmao
To quote one of my other favorite animated movies of all time..
"The bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."
- Anton Ego, Ratatouille
This is basically how I've felt about "professional reviews/critics" since I saw that movie.
damn anton ego described balto in one sentence what a chad
I literally go to see movies if the critics have given it a bad score on Rotten Tomatoes, it's worked great so far!
Yup! A winning formula
You see a lot of average and bad movies then.
Renfield the popes exorcist to catch a killer mafia momma paint, Shazam 2, 65, etc.
Most of these movies don’t have great audience scores either. But I guess when you watch movies as a way of virtue signaling or taking a stand which is weird.
Hopefully you watch the ones the likes a little bit or you would be missing scream 6 creed 3 John wick 4 dungeons and dragons, air, chevalier, the covanent, etc.
It’s usually best to read other peoples opinions and make up your own mind not mindless agreeing or doing the opposite.
This has been known even when I was growing up as a kid (in my late 30's now).
@Emeraldtrinket don't forget Babylon
Worked for Pixels
The divide is pretty simple: critics showed up to see a film, not validate their obsession with a fictional character.
Thank you. I often say that not every movie needs to be Schindler's list. I saw the movie, I had a good time. Check. Did I learn anything about the human condition? Nope. Did I go into this film trying to become more self aware, also nope. Sometimes it's ok to just watch a simple, yet super fun movie, turn the brain off and just have a good time.
Fr, moral lessons are annoying most of the time.
It sounds like you assume that anyone who doesn't like a movie you liked must have been expected the movie to be Schindler's List. That's a very flawed assumption on your part.
I see, so it’s worth spending millions of dollars on trash stories. Check. Next time a company makes a trash game, just turn your brain off and enjoy the ride, why expect quality when you can just accept what’s in front of you.
@@naniyotaka I hear you, there has to be some level of quality as well. But before you get too harsh, what were your expectations for a Mario movie? I don't know about you but my bar was pretty low so when it was actually pretty fun, I was appeased. More importantly, I had fun.
@@naniyotaka Dumb.
This is why the audience score is more reliable. Because if fans don’t feel strongly about a movie, they usually won’t review it at all.
Not rue if you look at IMDb there are a lot of reviews that thought Mario was just okay.
Most people don’t review things because they don’t want to take the time or see no value in it.
i think you should ask the opinion of someone you know and trust and knows you or see critics whose taste you trust. trying to see if something is for you by consensus (both critical and audience) is a folly.
um... that also means audience scores are very easily skewed
Nah! I'd rather go in with an open mind than listen to either side.
Critics are not the problem, it's how audiences engage with critics that is. Rotten tomatoes the way it scores movies is misleading BUT I think the way they do things does make sense. Everyone goes into seeing a movie with different standards and everything is subjective down to what score it gets to how that score is measured, hell some people see a 6/10 as a D and others see it as above average. It makes sense to simplify reviews when aggregating them like this there's so much variance but as a result don't think the site should be used as an objective metric for how good a movie is and I think the people behind it should communicate that fact better. There were people who saw the score it got on Rotten Tomatoes and disagreed with it before the film even came out. This is the issue, people do not want to read individual reviews, they do not want to engage with genuine discussion on the film, they want the arbitrary number the film recieves to validate their opinion. It's this obsession with being right and an obsession of receiving instant gratification that mainly lead to these kinds of discussions. Like it's ok to like a movie and for it not to be a critically acclaimed masterpiece. People who say that the critics are wrong because if the rotten tomatoes score completely ignore the 200+ individual reviews, some of which were incredibly positive of the movie.
This is a far better point than the one generated by the video. There’s value in explaining how RT actually works and the flaws of it. But the rest of it boils down to “Critics bad and pretentious” without citing a single example or quote.
the world needs more comments like these: addresses every side of the situation, points out queries that concern the situation at hand, makes a claim and properly supports it with evidence, and genuinely cleared up how RT works and why
it's just too bad the same people who claim to be "making their own decisions" are also the ones who refuse to accept any argument made against their point of view; as helpful as this comment is at putting the critic/audience situation into perspective, its a shame it probably won't be able to change the childish desire of being right that a lot of other commentors on this movie seem to have
Well said.
@@PeterGriffin11 thank you Peter Griffin
I think people are too hasty when saying you should dismiss critic scores entirely. Audience scores can be review bombed or boosted when there's an ultra dedicated fan base. All I know is that if both are low, the movie is probably bad. If both are high, it's probably a great movie and I'll watch it blind. Beyond that, I'll watch or read reviews from people whose opinions and tastes I'm familiar with and I have grown to trust to make a decision.
To be clear im not advocating a complete dismissal of critic reviews. Just trying to point out flawed trends in how they evaluate movies
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial I think every review should be judged on individual merit. Astral Chain, the video game, got great reviews and it's probably one of the worst, most clunky and broken action games I've ever played. The reviews were overwhelmingly positive, but it was clear after playing these critics, both audience and professional, were reviewing everything apart from the actual gameplay. Finding a friend with similar tastes who's consumed the product is a more reliable measuring stick than online reviews.
Yep, we should too. They have proven time and time again they are agenda based peeeedos. Jeffrey's little list was proof before cuties dropped and they praised as "empowering"! Nope they lost all respect for the rest of eternity, hell has a nice little place for them all. They can review the star wars Christmas special down there as Satan force feeds them fruit cake.
the issue with Audience scores is also true, and one example of that happening was with the game Fire Emblem Engage, a strategy game that is an entertaining experience, and the critic scores were good, but the playerbase score was bombed by dozens of people who disliked the game because it diverged very far from its predecessor, Fire Emblem Three Houses, and many contained the following statements: "0/10 HORRIBLE GAME" or "1/10 A DISGRACE TO THE SERIES" or "1/10 the gameplay was awesome, presentation was great, but the story was bad" while also having many 10/10 scores, but when people see a player score of 6/10, they might be let to think the game is lackluster or mediocre.
the Metacritic Model is fundamentally flawed, as it requires consensus of opinion to be "acclaimed" for a good score, and more controversial works will get bashed for not appealing for everyone.
Even if the Mario movie’s audience scores are fan-boosted, just remember that Mario is the best selling video game franchise of all time, with millions of copies sold so millions of fans would like the movie.
The Hollywood Film critics never grew up with Video Games.
That is the reason why these people are out of touch with the entire audience.
Yeah conservatives are out of touch lol people love diversity and inclusion just not bad writing. Most people are progressive and aren’t nazis
The Hollywood film critics are the New Old Fogeys: irritable, sour and out of touch.
@@denvan3143 well yeah conservatives are out of touch lol.
Plus they are Disney shills. Disney don’t like Universal dethroning them from their monopoly of CGI films and theme parks.
The Mario film did only well because Nintendo put their foot down on western sensibilities.
@@Golems_wrath the Hollywood film critics are woke twitter liberals.
just saw the Super Mario Bros movie and it met all my expectations and more. it was seriously one of the best entertainingly fun movies I've seen in years, maybe even in a decade
True
True.
Another *HUGE PROBLEM* is that critics can't offend _the hand that feeds them._ Therefore, if the movie is controversial and/or unpalatable for most audiences, critics have no choice but to give it a 10/10 or hollywood will treat them like traitors and black list them. This is why 90% of critics scores on rotton tomatoes are *NOTHING* like the audience scores. The audience goes to the cinema to escape their boring lives and be entertained, while the critics go to the cinema for the activism. *NOT THE SAME GOAL!*
As the creator of the video said movies are art. They are judging art not audience reaction.
You are either unaware of what critics do or are wanting them to judge movies on things they don’t.
Not all art is for everyone.
👏🍿
It is never as simple as that. Critics are also human beings, you know? And some have different interests than the others. The point of criticism is to value a movie by how well they convey an idea. The fact that people couldn't appreciate the beauty of a "boring" still shot because they just wanted to have fun watching a family movie doesn't invalidate the opposing opinion. Like, critics and general audiences have different, equally valid motivations. Just accept that and enjoy movies for once without feeling insecure because a random ass critic didn't like a movie that you enjoyed.
This is correct. A lot of people don't want to face it but we're living in a time of cultural gatekeeping in which certain messages take precedent over fun and appeal. Movies aren't supposed to be fun, they're supposed to remind us of how bad we are and how much we need to change.
@@Staunts i mean in actuality they want movies that point out flaws in society to offer temporary catharsis so that you don't feel like changing anything, or otherwise just make you feel hopeless and also therefore not feel like trying to change anything...art that calls to action active change is essentially non-existent in mainstream media (by design, due to conflict of interest of who filters the mainstream)
The critic score is currently at a 59%. It's possible it can get a finalized fresh score.
(As of July 2023, I don't think it will make it.
Still great that we are above 55, but critic scores don't matter.)
Maybe at least 60% or 62%
I want a fresh score even though rotten tomatoes sucks
Bottom line who cares, rotten tomatoes has been sucking dick since it first came to existence. Piece of shit reviews, I will never give them credibility
Considering RT is ran by leftist establishment shills and ideologues who hate Chris Pratt and Christians in general...I doubt it.
I saw the movie 3 times in theaters. Still want to buy it on DVD and watch it again. My nieces and nephew LOVED it and it is FAMILY FRIENDLY!
Using clips of Ego from Ratatouille was a fine choice for this video, as it brings to mind his excellent speech about what it is to _be_ a critic, and the difficulty/danger in doing your job well. Perhaps the latter part can explain some of the divide.
A critic doing their job well would have the publishers whose movies they rated fairly with a shit score wouldn't give them free stuff anymore.
It breaks my heart that critics only focused on their unfair expectations that they didn’t realise the brilliance and passion behind this film. Yeah sure, it’s a narrative we’ve seen before, but the way it’s shown through fun characters traversing this amazing world is just brilliant.
It also managed to expand on the characters in quite satisfying ways: showing the bond between the brothers and how Mario and Peach are both people who want to protect the ones they love, making them a better match as a couple.
That to me is a near masterpiece. Honestly the only problem was the fast pacing.
I think its a tough balance. If you slow down the pace, you gotta make sure narrative is stronger. Which can be done and I honestly might make a video on that, but yeah. For me, I love that it was a rip roaring 90 minutea. I had a smile the whole time and am excited to see more
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial I especially loved the scene with the blue shell. They not only made him a general to imply that there was something special about him like other high ranking Koopa’s, such as Kamek. But when he destroys the bridge you feel the pure tension in the scene, Peach believing Mario is dead, Cranky kong believing Dk is dead, the kongs getting captured, and Bowser delivering the line “Goodbye Mario”.
Other than the final battle this scene is masterful.
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial The pacing I can forgive because they had to establish all of these characters in such as short run time, and I think they did it pretty well. Also, it’ll hopefully be improved on in the sequels and spin-offs.
I went into this movie expecting a bad Illumination film, and still was disappointed. The critics are right, this film is aggressively terrible.
@@recycledwaste8737 You're dead. Straight up.
I think a lot about a guy who ordered food at a delivery app, then gave the restaurant a 3/5 rating because the sugar cane juice he ordered was too sweet. That's the feeling I get from professional critics for years now, and I usually just ignore then completely.
I think you hit the nail on the head, though to be honest there has always been a rift between what audiences want and what critics want. When I see a 20% rift or better between audience and critic scores, I start to raise eyebrows. And that's without getting into intentionally good/bad reviews on both sides.
Having seen the Mario Bros. movie, it was exactly what fans wanted. Aside wanting to see more of Luigi (I think they could have put a couple scenes of him trying to escape) every scene was dripping with personality ^_^ I also appreciate there were no fart jokes. I can also see a lot of potential for future Mario movies. And what's crazy is, I don't think it's released in Japan yet.
I feel like a lot of people forget that when it comes to movies and tv is that upsetting doesn’t equal good. People praise the hell out of any movie that makes them cry but it’s just as challenging to make a movie that gets you to smile.
Rotten Tomatoes and Critics don’t deserve to be taken seriously anymore especially considering what they think are good movies like Ralph Breaks The Internet and Cuties not to mention Rotten Tomatoes isn’t above rigging the critic and audience scores like with The Woman King (a rather terrible movie)
Moreover, I've seen where critics make a big deal about narrative when slamming a movie but then ignore those preachy principles if they like a movie in particular.
It's hypocrisy like that which makes me kind of happy sometimes that big "dumb" popcorn movies do well at the box office.
I think thats why its also important to find a critic you like and understand their taste. That way you know what they prioritize and can judge accordingly whether or not you should see a movie or give credence to their opinion. Additionally, there are critics who I know have different tastes than, so I don't really use their thoughts to base my movie watching off of, but I do deeply respect their analysis of film and find value in their critique even if I don't "agree" with their take.
But unfortunately a site like Rotten Tomatoes does away with all that nuance, and makes it even harder to identify with individual reviewers
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial Yeah, exactly. Thanks for the reply.
As far as my own film criticism, I'd tell people I don't particularly like westerns or Jane Austen-esque period piece dramas that much even as I've found movies from those two categories I thought were quite good (Open Range with Kevin Costner and Bright Star).
That or I'll try to take a movie based on how I felt they were trying to express things. Some movies are meant to be dumb fun and they're not trying to win awards or make a sweeping point about humanity or a given subject. Although those movies don't rank very high on my end of the year list either usually.
I have a higher standard for Pixar movies than I do something like The Emoji Movie or those parodies most people hate (Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, Date Movie, etc).
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial Some of the critics are morons. Not all of them are, but a minor majority of them are.
@@TheWritersBlockOfficial The issue with that is industries that give incentives to review scores. There are video game companies that do this where they give more financial incentives for a better review score for the game. The issue is that the places that review that meta score are often looking for different things then what an average fan is looking for. This causes a paradox of incentives for the people working on the game. The issue is when those incentives are not just slightly distorted but are polar opposites of one another.
I remember a simpler time where we didn't look to a tomato to tell us what our opinion on a movie should be before we even saw it, we just simply went and watched the movie and developed our opinion afterwards.
Lmao I still do that.
Well theres still a lot of people who barely touch RT at all lol
We shouldn't let Bob the Tomato decide our opinions for us lmao
...okay, I'm all for not listening to critics and rating scores if they don't really give us an accurate idea of whether we'll actually enjoy something, and it's bad to just parrot other people's opinions and die on hills defending them despite not having done a shred of personal research but...let's not pretend like that makes it reasonable for every person to go see every movie just in case they might like it. Doing a little bit of research to see if people think a movie is horrendously awful before you spend money on it is just good sense. You're buying a product, don't you want to know if the product has something wrong with it before you spend money on it?
@@ZeroKitsune That's why there's an audience score. If the audience liked it, there's a pretty good chance its at least a decent movie. :P
The use of Anton Ego from Ratatouille was perfect, since he is reminded why he became a critic to begin with.
Honestly in my opinion, if your going to trust critics when it comes to recommending a movie, actually read the reviews so you know if its average and is a waste of time when you could watch something better, a masterpiece that should be watched by all, or a dumpster fire that even Satan would not want to touch.
Doesn't really work always, I've seen some reviewers write some real colorful BS for crappy stuff.
@@spugelo359 I don’t mean singular reviews, I meant multiple, negative and positive.
This is a perfect summation of the problem with Rotten Tomatoes and the critic's reception to the Mario Movie. They are actively making themselves less and less relevant.
And yet they will still exist? Critics will never be irrelevant.
They have always been irrelevant to a portion of society that only wants to be entertained regardless of story, development, or a moral or lesson learned.
But to people who appreciate movies as art as something that can tell story, showcase acting, cinematography, or explore ideas they will serve a purpose.
Expecting critics to be fans of every source material is unrealistic. A movie can be for the fans and still be average overall. If you only judge a movie by your fandom and ignore everything else your view would be skewed and biased. That’s exactly what you accuse critics of doing.
I agree both parties do it. That’s why it’s best to read a review for it merits and not a score. You may find out that what is important to a critic like story or cinematography isn’t important to you as you only want fan service.
@@Emeraldtrinket You are confused. Critics will always exist, but that has no bearing on whether they’re relevant. Plenty of critics have been irrelevant for a long time, but it doesn’t change the fact that they exist.
Critics can be more relevant and serve a purpose depending on their expectations going into a movie. If they’re going into a movie simply because they have to review it and without any understanding of what to expect, then their review will turn out practically value-less.
I’m not expecting critics to be fans of every source material. This is a straw man. I expect critics to have adjusted expectations going into a movie. A lot of the critics for the Mario Movie reviewed the movie just because they felt they needed to despite the fact that they had no understanding of what to expect. As a result, their reviews are practically valueless, only valuable to people who have no interest watching the Mario Movie (people who probably didn’t intend to see the movie or watch reviews of it).
All viewers of media are skewed and biased. It is impossible to not be biased. Every one comes into a movie with a bias and it’s best that they own up to that bias, to help viewers understand if the movie will appeal to them. But that’s not what many critics do. Most “professional” critics writing article reviews hide their bias or go one step further and assert what fans will think (despite the fact that fans openly disagree in mass). These kinds of critics are scum.
Going to one review and seeing them harp on the story or cinematography won’t necessarily give you a good idea of if that critic is a good guide or if what they’re saying about the movie is accurate. The easiest way to tell if what that critic is saying is accurate is if they tell you their bias upfront. Beyond a critic being honest about their bias, the next best method is to watch a lot of a critic judging their tastes in relation to yours to see if they have a similar bias to you.
Viewers obviously can’t do that for everyone. So, this is why it’s important that critics going into these video game movies say upfront “I’m not a Mario fan and this review may not be helpful to Mario fans. I’m coming at it from the perspective of someone who knows little about Mario and doesn’t care for faithfulness.” A lot of the Mario Movie critics are scum though that would rather hide this fact than be honest and help people decide whether to watch it.
@@ThePastAnalysis except most critics pointed this out int their review.
They didn’t say those words but they did mention that if your not familiar you will be lost or it won’t make sense. They also mention the lack of storyline. Most audience member agree with this as well. The difference is the audience rates it higher due living the ip and ignoring what it lacks and the critics factor what it lacks in.
Your statement is exactly why the audience score is in accurate with this movie. The audience score sees a lot of tens because they are Mario fans and are living their childhood. The nostalgia is what got them through the movie nothing else because there was very little else to the movie.
I for one read critics reviews and lower my expectation for the movie and expectations were met. I haven’t played a Mario movie in twenty years and didn’t get most of the references. The movie was about a 6 to me and the rotten tomatoes score is at 59%. If your a biased movies goer aka a fan and only care about your enjoyment and nothing else then you will love it. Critics don’t rate things on their enjoyment as the sole factor. The audience does. Therefore it is completely stupid of the audience to say the critics are wrong when they aren’t aligned with the critics. The critics can’t align with everyone’s enjoyment.
The Mario movie could of been much more than an advertisement for the game. This has been proven by the Lego movie an ip with no story at all.
Critics aren’t irrelevant if they were they wouldn’t have a job. No one is paying a movie critic that no one goes to read. They track these things through clicks and so on. Unless your saying that a bunch of people that don’t like or value critics are clicking on reviews.
@@Emeraldtrinket No, they didn't. Rather, many critics were so off in their understanding of Mario that it was apparent in their reviews they knew little of Mario. The critical part many of these critics lacked is that their view might not hold up to fans. Most didn't say this. Some even asserted recommendations to fans.
Most audience members, myself included, agree that it's lacking in terms of story. That's immaterial to what I was talking about though. Someone unfamiliar with Mario, badmouthing the movie heavily on the basis of story doesn't really make clear to viewers if they'll likely have that same experience. Giving the disclaimer about being a non-fan and how fans may have a different perspective is a critical piece that's missing in most critic reviews.
Your third paragraph shows your perspective. It's why you replied to me at all. You think the fans are wrong about this movie. Your understanding of the movie is inaccurate. Just because it's light on story doesn't make it a bad movie. It's the Mario Movie. It should appeal primarily to Mario fans and children. If you're a non-Mario fan, then you shouldn't go into this movie thinking it will cater to you.
One critic in particular cited the Iron Man movie as an example of how Mario should've catered to non-fans. However, Mario isn't the same as Iron Man. Mario is a franchise that has been historically very light on narrative and more focused on visuals and entertainment. Iron Man and other Marvel properties were taken from comics and historically relied on their narrative. The Iron Man movie in 2008 played heavily to the source material which just so happened to be very appealing to non-fans. The same is true for the Last of Us show, which again was from an IP that was heavily based around its story. It was easy to adapt it to a show medium.
The Rotten Tomatoes critic score itself is a whole can of worms, both for what this creator said and for other factors. All it takes to be a "critic" is to have an article or video reviewing the movie and you're automatically put in a different scoring bracket, the critic score. The critic score is then advertised by Rotten Tomatoes to say which movies are "good" and which ones are "bad." The whole setup is fundamentally flawed.
The critics were wrong for this movie as they went into it without proper expectations. If you know next to nothing about Mario, as you do, then you should go into it with low expectations as you did. But many of the critics didn't do that and rated the movie lower than a 6. If you watched the video, then you'd know the Rotten Tomatoes critic percentage isn't based on an average of critic scores. It's based on a percentage of critics giving the movie a "good" score (defined as 6 or higher). If critics went into the movie as you did, then the score would be MUCH higher.
The Mario IP is also very different from the Lego IP. Lego has never had a narrative. It's just a toy based around building things. That means that there's a ton of flexibility in the writer's room to make a story with the IP. However, Mario has a narrative and very simple one at that. Nintendo is also understandably very protective of their star IP and wanted to make sure it was faithful to Mario stories. These factors created far more constaints on the Mario Movie writers than the Lego Movie writers. To make this Lego comparison shows a funadmental misunderstanding of the Mario IP.
That's not true. Being irrelevant doesn't mean you don't have a job. It means that your opinion is not valuable in the larger discussion of the movie. This is the case for many critics. Their opinions are not valuable in the larger discussion of the movie.
While some critics may be paid based on overall clicks, this isn't the case across the board. And even when it is the case, it doesn't mean that these critics articles on every movie get a lot of clicks. These critics may get a lot of clicks on certain articles they write and less so on others. I don't know how much general audiences or fans clicked on these bad Mario Movie reviews.
@@ThePastAnalysis the critics score is a 59%. That is almost. 6/10 on average across all critics. The movie will probably end up being fresh.
Much like the critics people who score the movie low would not recommend this movie to a general audience member. They would to a fan because they are going for the fan service and not for what you go to most movies on.
The point here is that good movies are accessible to anyone with an open mind. The Mario movie is not for them it’s for people already bought in. This is obvious by the audience score.
Critic reviews are people using precise language to say "I liked/didn't like this movie, and here's why." Barring review bombs, they aren't liars or activists just because they have a different opinion. Any kind of media analysis skill is absolutely essential to the overall consumption of a piece of media. Without it we'd just be mindlessly watching aesthetics that we like and saying "putting my eyeballs on that made my brain feel good." Communicating with people that agree and disagree with our very subjective opinions is part of that analysis. If you liked something for the same reason that someone disliked something, that's great!! That's deepened your appreciation for the thing! You can now better articulate your thoughts on the thing. And seeing opinions you agree with that add something new to the conversation is a wonderful feeling, it also deepens your appreciation. But the response to movie criticism for this movie in particular has been what I consider the death of movie criticism. Everywhere I've seen any time anyone makes a very valid negative point about this movie people respond like their best friend just got physically attacked. Its insane. I saw this movie as someone that wasn't a huge fan of Mario and loved it. I looked up all the easter eggs or whatever. And most of the people I've seen complaining about this movie have very valid points. The pacing is lightning fast, plot points get picked up and dropped everywhere. People hear this and act like they themselves have been insulted. Its a kid's movie. Just use your better judgement, disagree or agree, and move on. Support the movie if you like it like I did. But don't be taking it personally when someone else doesn't like it. Its not that hard to move on.
Mario was never about the art of storytelling. It was about the art of fun, and yes I do think creating fun experiences is an art in and of itself. Explaining why would be me gushing about how Mario 3 is the greatest game of all time for about an hour, so who knows, maybe one day I will. Point is, the movie got that right. It’s quick, engaging, and colorful fun.
a part of me thinks youre a little too caught up on the rainbow road sequence but sure thats fair
@@paperplate3995 Or the visuals being outstanding the whole time. Or the fact that, despite the short runtime, they nail Mario and Luigi’s dynamic with a good selection of small moments early on. Or the entire finale sequence and seeing Bowser rage. I also have noticed you’ve been trying to detract from several comments praising the movie
@@robertlauncher there should be nothing wrong with me detracting praise if everyone keeps going "you should form your own opinions"
Besides, it's not like I don't give praise where it's deserved. The movie's visuals are by far its strongest elements, but alone they can't create the "greatest movie of all time" many commentors claim it to be. I also mentioned rainbow road in particular because the visuals in that scene are beautiful in a way that hasn't already been seen before in other movies.
If you've noticed I've been commenting negatively about the movie then surely you've also noticed that my reasons are consistent and relate to genuine flaws the movie has, particularly in pacing (even I wouldn't have minded the movie being longer for this reason, as many people would agree), storytelling, and commitment to a single plot line even when it's already a rudimentary one
Also Luigi got done dirty tbh, only character I liked got sidelined at the start smh. It's honestly a shame we didn't see more of Mario and Luigi's dynamic and instead we got empty small talk between Mario and Peach
Edit: fun fact you're one of the only people who have replied to me with something remotely insightful about *why* you praise the movie, and that's something I respect a lot; a lot of others just went "hAtErrrrr" and called it a day like bruh
@@paperplate3995 Eh good point, apologies. My biggest issue personally is the pacing. That being said, I’m impressed with how effectively most of the characters are portrayed in spite of that. Like aside from Peach and maybe Cranky, he’s always been kinda inconsistent, most of them were spot on and I appreciate that. I liked DK and Mario’s rivalry and bickering, Bowser got a lot of good scenes, yeah I don’t like that Luigi was sidelined, but they got his easily scared, yet loyal to his brother and brave when it counts personality down. Like to achieve all that in an hour and a half while moving as fast as this film and introducing all this stuff is something I’m not used to in video game adaptations. I mean Mortal Kombat was probably longer and they accomplished less in terms of character accuracy
Ok
But Mario 2 exists and so does Mario Wii.
Critics : didn't like the super mario bros movie
Me : Hey guys remember the time when critics made cuties so high up and they like it.
Dude, Cuties were only 80 critic reviews or so ou of thousands of critics. Rotten Tomatoes’ rating system sucks, that’s the real problem with the “critics like cuties” argument
"I don't like Mario, I only like little kid-".
@@jumentoqueanima again, only 80 critics in Rotten Tomatoes out of thousands
@Blended Circuit yes, but that’s not my point. My point is that ONLY 80 PEOPLE OUT OF THOUSANDS REVIEWED CUTIES, so the “critics love cuties” argument is based on a small sample that looks bigger because Rotten Tomatoes’ system doesn’t work well
@@malenaavalos7829 I appreciate this. This whole comments section has been disheartening with how people have been discussing "The Critics" like it's some kind of monolith.
Actually, that's what I've been saying about critic reviews. I described the critics reviewing different genres of movies with a single rubric sheet with heavy emphasis on the story and that I think that different movies that aren't narrative driven should have a different rubrics or the same rubric but weighed differently.
Your average viewer these days "likes" whatever doesn't offend him or make him fall asleep. A critic actually thinks about what he's watching and how he engages with it. This is where the divide is.
Found the critic
Agree 100%
When will people realize that Rotten Tomatoes doesnt rate movies…its just an average of how many critics liked the movie/disliked…. Why does this always have to be said…
a lot of people only see the funny percent number because of advertisements
Critics are not biased against visually impressive animation that acts as a love letter to some childrens' corporate property. The Lego Movie has 96% on RT, Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse is on 97%
They just didn't like The Mario Movie for...the reasons expressed in their reviews. Admittedly some of them are kind of snotty and mean for what is essentially a kids movie, but critics were equally merciless with The Emoji Movie because that film deserved it.
Who cares if critics audiences have diverging opinions? Is it the job of a critic to sit there and passively absorb the movie and merely answer the question of whether the average movie-goer or fan of the franchise will like it? Or are they meant to evaluate art using their subjective judgment, and people can choose whether or not to agree with them?
The primary problem is two fold: Critics want movies dating back to when films were about both challenging it's audiences understanding AND entertaining them.
But the days where you can do both...those are sadly just about over. The two mediums are mutually divorced from 90% of cinematography now. You largely ONLY get one or the other, and seems more critics simply gravitate to wanting films solely about challenging perceptions and status quos.
Mario runs counter to this notion, in their minds eye, it treats it's audiences as dim-witted and unable to be impressed without mindless bedazzlement.
Yet both the Box office and audiences critical acclaim have proven in spades: The critics are all DEAD-WRONG about the Mario movie, but they're stuck with their standards, this CANT just say "welp, guess we DONT know what cinema is anymore now"
Sunk cost fallacy makes that notion of doubling back and reassessing their stances an impossibility. Every word they put to their final review: that's a ride-or-die choice they're obligated to stay with.
To that end, many are also bought out by rivals and malcontents who ACTUALLY wanted this movie to fail to keep Hollywood's and Disney's current folly path unchallenged in basically monopolizing the movie industry again.
But Nintendo has proven to be the Pipe-wrench in ALL of that now. And what's MORE alarming to the critics: THIS unstoppabke phenomenon is JUST the start to the wider Nintendo Cinematic Universe.
And if theirs ONE company somehow more voracious in protecting the Representation it's IPs get, it's Nintendo.
I've personally always suspected they could challenge Disney's outright Monopoly on the Entertainment Industry, and now it seems that theory is getting proven in Spades with Blackjacks to spare~
Nah, they're definitely biased.
The divergence between critics and audiences is this: the critic is being paid to be there, it’s his job. The audience pay to be there, their days work is done. They are there to be amused, amazed, scared, according to the genre. The critic can’t simply enjoy the movie, he has to validate his being there, he has to write something that will justify being paid to be in the theater. The audience doesn’t have to justify anything; he/she either like the movie or didn’t, and doesn’t have to explain why.
My late wife and I preferred movies that were fun and silly; her day job was as a financial analyst, mine was in documenting technology. A movie that was just plain dumb fun was a respite from the day’s work.
Ultimately, rotten tomatoes is the lazy way out. It’s better to find a few critics who share your sensibilities and who’s judgment you trust.
The late Roger Ebert was not just a good critic, he was a good reporter; he described the film adequately without spoilers and was able to explain why he did, or didn’t like the movie and why you might like it when he didn’t or vice versa. I don’t think there are a lot of critics like that today, ones who can be objective about their subjectivity.
@@jameskarg3240 it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that the movie industry has always cranked out a lot of movies with more emotional appeal than intellectual challenge. It’s just that we remember the exceptional movies and don’t remember or never saw the ones that were “just OK.“
It occurs to me many film critics attempt a higher philosophical plane to convince their parents that paying for their college education wasn’t a waste of money.
@@denvan3143 What's bad with the emotional appeal?
How did Rotten Tomatoes have any kind of credibility with that kind of system?
The system that is basically 6+/10 or nothing. Is quite similar to the electoral college in the US. You know.
ONE OF THE GREATEST CRIMES AGAINST DEMOCRACY!!
Both systems are terribly flawed and easy to exploit and get objectively wrong outcome. Trump didn't even had the popular vote, Clinton did!!!
Don't always believe critics most of them are like Squidward who doesn't grow up with their lives
when i was younger [in australia] there was a movie critic with a weekly tv show. He was helpful to me, once i realized I had a inverse relationship to his recommendations. If he gave it 5* I would usually hate it, if he gave it 1* I'd most likely love it. But this system worked because I was hearing his reviews each week, not some mashed up website aggregator
Film critics are NOT saying whether audiences will likely enjoy the film. Thus, they have no point for us, only for Hollywood's introspection.
Now that I know how that works I am genuinely angry that 4% gave breaking bad less than a six
Right?
I stopped using Rotten Tomatoes as a meter when they gave Godzilla KOTM a low score. If anyone went into that theater expecting some human exposition and not monsters beating up each other, they went to the wrong movie.
Rotten. Tomato 3/10.
Because There were No Bowser and his fellows in Godzilla KOTM.
it should have King Bowser with Gigantic Form vs Godzilla.
After the movie, i was back to home in despair...
i got drunk with 3 of miso soup and played Mario 3 (NES) all night ,3+ hrs.
Note: Sorry for King bowser.
i am a person of motion sickness, that is why i played Mario 3 than "Fury World" on the day.
( ';ω;) still crying...
I love king of the monsters
You know a movie is gonna be great if the critic score is low and the audience score is high
They aren't even critics They are just activists
What is the activism in evil dead rise?
Aw, did the critics like a movie with a gay character in it? That must've been very hard for you.
@@recycledwaste8737 I mean, they liked cuties. If that's not activist, then what is it?
@@recycledwaste8737 no, I saw someone saying that critics are heavily encouraged to give political stuff a higher score. Also I believe the type of activists @therider3939 was talking about are THOSE activists, ie. twitter activists
@@recycledwaste8737 damn hitting it hard
thank you for breaking down the actual process behind RT as an aggregation site, and its rating methodologies in a clear way
Happy to help!
Remember they gave Cuties a 90%
Legends like this guy should get more credit. If critics thought more outside the box like him, people would definitely get a better understanding of the movie.
Gotta be one of the worst takes on the subject. The much simpler explanation for the divide between critics and audiences is that the movie was made specifically to cater to fans of franchise and Mario brand... so fans that saw it (and the majority of people that would review it on RT as audience members) would probably enjoy it. The audience it was written for loved it. People that aren't in that audience (most regular critics), didn't enjoy it.
Pretty straightforward.
So you didn't see the forest for trees.
Hi Dylan,
Great video!
I think you made the best point in your video in that there is a disconnect between the goals and expectations of Nintendo/Illumination versus the audience and the critics:
(a) Nintendo/Illumination's goal is to create an on-brand, best representation of Nintendo's flagship franchise Super Mario Bros., and they delivered on all counts. The movie is a full tilt representation of how Nintendo IPs can come to a blockbuster movie project, and by all counts, Nintendo/Illumination hit all their targets and beyond.
(b) Another point worth thinking about is that this is the Normandy landing of the Nintendo Cinematic Universe -- capture and secure the beachhead, and begin your march to the capital. It doesn't have to win all the awards and/or groundbreaking, but as long as you can establish the beachhead, then you can always ship in additional reinforcements to add more troops on the ground. Now with Mario setting up the beachhead (1B+ USD in expected gross figures) Nintendo can greenlight future projects (with Illumination or their own dedicated cinematic team) to bring other franchises like Zelda, Fire Emblem, Pokemon, more Mario stuff, etc.
(c) It is also worth mentioning that Nintendo always marches to the beat of its own drum for over a hundred years. They released the NES in the midst of the video game crash of the 1980s and single handedly saved the video game industry. They released the N64 (with a cartridge) even though everyone went on CD-ROMs and Sony dominated the generation. Nintendo then released the DS (which everyone went huh? because it had two screens and a touchscreen and underpowered compared to Sony's PSP at the time), and went to become the best selling mobile gaming device of its generation (arguably all time). Against the PS3 and 360, Nintendo released the Wii and made gangbusters until it flopped the Wii U. Finally, they released the Switch that was already underpowered in 2017, but now nearly 6 years later they are releasing the sequel to the Breath of the Wild to the Switch. The Switch has probably hit 120 million units sold by this point. Finally, Nintendo always held the line on releasing the fun, family friendly products as their major franchises, and they are the best first party game developer consistently for over 40 years now. You have major studios come and go with ups and downs (Halo, CoD, Blizzard, to name a few), but Nintendo is always consistent time and again. But the key is profitability: Nintendo has been selling underpowered machines, but they are profitable from the first sale (compare to Sony/Microsoft who lost money on the first run of any console release). Their approach to moviemaking is no different here: play it safe as long as it prints money.
(d) Against that backdrop, I think it's fair to say that Nintendo really doesn't give a damn about its critics (contrary to Hollywood) as long as its audiences come and pack the theatres on every major Nintendo release. Nintendo is one of the first companies to ditch E3 and released their own Nintendo Direct as early as 2013, literally 10 years before everyone ditched E3. Why? because it saves money and allows them to market directly to their audiences who don't have the means to travel to E3 every year. Nintendo knows exactly what it's doing with its products and properties.
(e) As a lifelong video gamer born in the early 80s, it is easy for me to see all these trends because I have lived it from my childhood to my adulthood. However, all of these nuances are lost to the mainstream movie critics who have no idea about the rich historical background of Nintendo as a company, and they literally make money by bucking the common wisdom trend for more than a century (they dabbled in bunch of industries before their breakthrough in video game industry in the 70s and 80s), and that is the DNA of the company. Critics love to review movies on its artistic merits. If they really want to review Super Mario Bros -- they need to think like Nintendo -- is it going to make them money in the long run? If it prints money, does it really matter if the critics hate the movie?
(f) Going back to Rotten Tomatoes and critics in general, perhaps the movie critics industry needs to start accounting for the economics of a movie -- if a movie sells really well, can you really say objectively it's a terrible movie? As a business person, one would strongly disagree with that assessment. Thus, after that long narrative rambling, I can say that I agree with your assessment that the Super Mario Bros. movie shows exactly why grading movies either by (a) aggregating reviews or (b) purely on the artistic merits without any other consideration, fails to account why the Super Mario Bros. movie is super successful with the audience.
They also gave "Cuties" a fresh score.
Ok, that's isn't misleading data, is just critics no knowing how to review
Film criticism died a long time ago, the audience score is usually the most reliable.
6:50 You're right, that is the one thing they could improve. Other than that, excellent movie! :D
you see, illumination is now good because I simp for nintendo, the company that definitely likes its audience
He was so right for saying that my one thing before the movie was 'please don't do Luigi dirty' and then they kinda did, I'll forgive them if they make a Luigi's mansion spinoff 😂
What if the audience just has garbage taste?
It's both.
the intendd audience enjoyed the movie and theyre usually the ones spamming 10/10 ratings with gmail alts and stuff
IT IS one of those movies that enhances more on the well executed experience than the complex journey storyline, and other films that are great but ignored by critics as examples would be Road to EL Dorado and even Enrique Gato's Capture the Flag, makes sense?
i watched the mario movie today and it was absolutely amazing
Glad you enjoyed it!
I trust people who watch films professionally to know what makes a good film. I can only trust myself to know whether I enjoyed a film or not.
Honestly, I went to see the movie the second day of showing in theaters, and I was absolutely shocked to be completely alone in the theater for the whole movie.
I have no idea if it was the location or what, but it was certainly a new experience to have an entire theater to myself.
The Mario franchise is one of those franchises where everyone who wants to see the movie see it on the day the movie comes out.
Dont know why we still need anyone telling us Rotten Tomatoes is awful. Cannot believe real human beings (probably NPCs) use it as a basis for judgement. But the movie wasnt 96% that was purely fan/soyboys "REE-ing" simultaneously trying to protect their beloved childrens franchises. Gross.
I disagree with the fact that the movie is devoid of any deep emotion.
Yes, it is a bit rushed, but I feel like the way Mario feels about his father not believing in him, and how DK has similar feelings with his father, is deep and relatable.
And the fact that this is what allows Mario to relate to DK and ends up causing the two to stop fighting and become friends is pretty great, even though it was rushed.
@@An_error_occurred. It is.
I love the movie I watched it wanting to see how Mario and Luigi would defeat Bowser and the Easter eggs and references were awesome the story I loved it I’m glad I gotten to see it
I don't understand the two parts of your essay. One the one hand, you find the rotten to tomato scoring system bad because it gives middling 6/10 reviews the same weight as 10/10 reviews but then you complain that critics in general give middling reviews to crowd pleasures.
So... A more normal aggregate score would give those crowd pleasures a lower score. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
If there's one thing I admire about the Super Mario movie, it's that it was just looking to have fun. It can be summed up in one line: Mario visits the Mushroom town and says "so, these blocks just float here?" Toad says "Yep!" That's it, perfect -- no need to explain why blocks float, it's acknowledged, we accept it, move on. We need the Kong army to fight Bowser? Perfect, we're on a journey to find the Kong army. They have go-karts? Perfect, we're on karts now. Donkey Kong is the son of the king, and Mario needs to fight him for the king to approve? Perfect, let's do that.
It's like One Punch Man. Sometimes it's about the action, not why the action is happening.
The moment I saw that American Psycho had a 68% on Rotten Tomatoes, I realized their system was broken.
Critics watch for good storytelling and movie craft. Popular movies often are terrible as a movie but good on basic entertainment levels. It's why superhero movies do so well despite being very formulaic and uninspired in most outings. They can still be great fun but if you want something more than mindless fun they often fail very hard. When critics and audiences are on the same page you either know you're watching something uniquely entertaining (Such as Everything, Everywhere All At Once) or plain trash (um off hand, Cat in the Hat). Critics are no more wrong than audiences are correct. It comes down to mentality in what you watch.
^ this
Mario Bros was a really good fun filled family movie. The kids all around the theatre absolutely loved it. And as a lover of Nintendo games myself, I really enjoyed it.
Yes.
I checked every box a Mario about the Super Mario bros games should check and then some. It did the majority of what you'd want in a nice tight package. It didn't over stay it's welcome or get bogged down with a bunch of unneeded fat to the story. All the major threads were taken care of by the end of the film and it gave you easter eggs galore. I say mission acomplished for Nintendo and Illumination.
A lot of critics probably never even played the game series. They really bought a ticket that said “Super Mario” and were expecting Inception.
The need for critics came from a time when the public’s opinion could not be easily sourced. Now with the Internet, the need for critics is rapidly diminishing. If they can’t effectively represent public opinion, then they’re failing at their jobs and are no longer needed.
Critics expect different things from movies, and that's okay. You shouldn't dismiss criticisms of _The Mario Movie_ as misunderstandings of what the film "intends to be," when in reality, they're indictments of that very intention. Film critics understand the utility of a popcorn flick; when Martin Scorsese compared Marvel films to theme park attractions, most people looked past the fact that rollercoasters are still a positive thing to be compared to. He wasn't calling them bad or useless in and of themselves- he was calling them incongruent with what critics and filmmakers alike have come to expect from and admire in a movie.
I saw _Endgame_ when it came out and had a great time, but personally, I look for more in a film than its initial, "just-left-the-theater" impact. I look for memorability, emotional and thematic complexity, and deeper meaning. Critics understand that there _is_ value in films such as _The Mario Movie-_ they're just critical of the particularities of said value. For example, I think everyone would've been happier if Mario wasn't voiced by Chris Pratt. That decision was obviously made on account of Chris's massive popularity, and- in turn, it stands to reason- his ability to transfer said popularity to the film, bolstering its profits. Decisions such as this (those in favor of capital) regularly limit artistic potential for the sake of profit. Dismissing these criticisms is just dishonest and inconsiderate of what modern film critics are actually trying to accomplish.
The movie did what it needed to do. It gave Mario fans, the most mainstream video game, exactly what they wanted. A kids movie.
I have a soft spot for the 1990s movie. And yeah. It's not good. But they actually tried to craft a compelling story with little guidance besides the NES games.
I'm in the minority. Most people are going to justify the new Mario movie's story and style. Gets view. Gets likes. Gets attention. But there's a reason Quentin Tarantino presents the Bob Hoskins Mario at his theatre.
Imagine thinking the 90's movie is better than the new one.
This video fundamentally misunderstands the job of a critic. A critic is not there to represent or predict the opinions of the people. They exist to seperate the quality of the art they are critising.
You have mentioned qualities like animation references and music as positives of the movie and they are great and critics have noted this. But the movies dedication to translate the game into film has resulted in major fundamental flaws that harm the film as a piece of art. Entertaining film? Sure. But its disregard for strong characters and a cohesive narrative hurts the film as art. Film has farrr more potential than just being entertaining and it doesn't have to sacrific it's entertainment value to reach it.
I would point those reading this to the lego movie as i think they are comparable. Both are product tie ins and both are entertianment-driven films not trying to be "citizen kane" however critics saw MUCH more in that film as it had a more developed story, characters and kept the animation and humour.
Critics have a role and i think we should work harder to understand what that role is. Dont ever let a critic take away your enjoyment of a film but also respect why a critic my criticise a film you enjoy.
The death of film criticism is when people think an aggregated film score has sny meaning whatsoever.
To be fair, audiences do have a tendency to be pretty biased in their opinions as well. I mean, comparatively, the Sonic films have a more emotionally inventive story that’s not afraid to take a breather and slow down when it’s necessary, whereas the Mario film feels like it’s constantly rushing through those vital scenes without letting the moments sink in or resonate, making it feel kinda shallow. And yet… audiences still give it a higher rating because “it’s more like the games”.
Ugh. I get it; the first Mario film was a disappointment because it was nothing like the games, but just because something looks and acts like something you’re more familiar with doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be held up to scrutiny.
This, legit while I think the mario movie is OK. It just made me want to see the sonic movies again. Since they had more substance on their own merits.
I only ever trust the audience scores over critic scores when deciphering if I should see a movie
I would say that you should read why the audience like it And if it fits your taste. Based on numbers Mario Movie sounds like must see thing but based on *why* people like it I would just stare 90 minutes on pastel moving pictures I have no attachment to cause I never play any of that games.
The amount of people who still give a crap about Rotten Tomatoes (and Metacritic, for that matter) after all these years is mind-boggling. Just watch the movies you like and don't even check this stupid site.
I happened to look at the individual critic scores, and it looks like there were actually a lot of critics that liked the movie. I noticed that what they all have in common is that are familiar with the Super Mario Bros. games. Basically, the few critics that happen to be fans of Nintendo games loved it, and the ones who know nothing about video games hated it. I think it might actually be an issue of media illiteracy on the part of the critics, ironically... you would have to know how to appreciate Mario games to be able to "get" the movie.
As someone who liked the movie, this seems kinda whiny and defensive. I think the more obvious motivator for a divide between critic and audience scores is just:
1. Critics see more movies, so they have higher standards
2. Audiences tend to watch movies they think they'll like, critics watch movies they are told to watch
I don't think there needs to be invoked some conspiracy about "art bros" or whatever.
Agreed.
I’ve seen this movie twice, and I would see this, Detective Pikachu, and the Sonic movies any day of the week over any so called ‘critically acclaimed’ movies, such as the Woman King or The Last Jedi, that love to either pervert history, humiliate male heroes, or promote propaganda. Those video game movies were fun to watch, and they promoted family values.
Pikachu was father and son and to a certain level forgiveness/reconciliation.
Sonic was finding family and acceptance.
Mario was brotherly love and not giving up.
Things we can all get behind.
Critcs: Mario isn't like Metal Gear Solid in plot. Booooo.
Fans: I understood that reference! 😂
Don’t forget that every time a movie is made for kids, they give it a 0%.
Its simple, they are paid to be biased critics and also angry that it doesn't have LGBT+ propaganda. Guaranteed if they made Mario or Bowser Gay, they would had given it a 10/10.
typical writers block W
Ayyyyye thank you man! Really appreciate that!
Ok, here's a very simple way to destroy your whole argument: what you're saying is that the Mario movie is as good as Ratatouille. It sounds so dumb when they spell it out for you, doesn't it?
This whole video is just so ironic: "Jokes aside, Mario is not a perfect film. It is thinly plotted, devoid of any profound emotion, and would have been way better if Luigi was the mc. And yet, it's easily one of the most visually engaging animated films I've seen in the last decade".
Ok, first of all, I could tell you about multiple films released this past year that are way more visually inventive and engaging than the Mario movie, but that is subjective anyway.
Second: the visuals, music, and entertainment value are not what critics really care about. And I know that is exactly what you pointed out in the video, but just hear me out: while all of these factors can really improve a movie, I do think that plot and good writing is the utmost important part of a movie. In fact, I've only seen one case where something else than the story held up the entire project and transformed it into a masterpiece, and it was a video game. In general, a good story that communicates an idea well can hold up a movie with bad music and visuals, but not vice-versa. In fact, Music and visuals serve to better communicate the story, not to stand out by themselves.
You also point out how "critics didn't take into account what the Super Mario Movie was trying to accomplish". The thing is, if a movie is a crowd-pleaser, that doesn't mean it gets a free pass to be a bad movie. That's just dumb. If the Mario movie is really devoid of any profound emotion, why are you insisting that critics give it a higher score? It is clearly a fun but lackluster film, so if you enjoy watching it and acknowledge its quality, why would you care about a low score?
I mean, criticism is about finding value in the way that art portrays a specific theme, not about which movie got the loudest ovation. What you're searching for is entertainment value. I won't say that film criticism isn't flawed in the way that it tries to value art as if it was objective, and I also won't say that Oscar-bait movies don't exist, but there's always another side to the coin: It is undeniably unfair to say that a movie with little to no story is equal, if not better than a movie that manages to communicate a basic human concept in a creative, realistic, and emotionally impactful way.
You're trying to change the core values of criticism because you need to feel validated by a false authority: the critics, but you don't actually have anything to back up your claims.
You also didn't criticize the audience's score on the film, and used your comments about Rotten Tomatoes' system only against the critics. In my terms, that is clearly a result of your bias towards whoever validates your opinion on the film.
Last of all, and to sum up everything being said here, my point is that you're criticizing critics for judging movies by the values that matter to them, and not by how enjoyable the movie was. Saying that "the Mario movie is supposed to be a fun family movie with no implications, hence it should get a high score" is implying that a good movie doesn't exist: that as long as it gets the point across it is as valuable as any masterpiece. Wich is, ironically, exactly the same thing you were criticizing about the Rotten Tomatoes System.
Also to point out something I missed in this comment: Critics and Audiences have different motivations. Just accept that instead of de-valuing other people's opinions just because they like to watch a type of movie while you like another. Art and criticism is, or should be, subjective. It is good that you didn't point this out in the video because you would be contradicting yourself once again.
I’m not going to read this but you probably have a point. 👍
I went expecting a Mario bros movie and i got more than i actually thought i was going to get. All the references, the Easter eggs through the movie. I was a little kid all over again. Rotten Tomatoes is just rotten i don't even care about what they say about movies.
After watching the Fallout series, this is the conclusion I’ve come to. Mario and FNAF are enjoyed because of their novelty and fan-service. The fans (the primary audience) don’t care about the quality. The fact that a Mario or FNAF movie exists and has the amount of fan-service that they have is enough for them. Fallout, Arcane, and even The Last of Us on the other hand, while they still have fanservice and have an appeal to fans, still broaden their appeal to those who never played those games, even potentially making people want to go and experience those games.
And there’s nothing wrong with fans having a movie all for themselves, they just need accept that others who aren’t fans, especially critics, aren’t gonna go in with those same fan biases and get the exact enjoyment of that fan-service from the movie. You can do this without being petty and getting mad constantly touting “the critics don’t matter” “It’s for the fans, not you.” That doesn’t mean they’re expecting the next Spider-Verse, Citizen Kane, or Breaking Bad. It’s just people wanting to see how the product works as a movie or TV Show.
Screw the critics, mate. Audiences are what really matters!
no, they don't. audience scores can be heavily inflated by hardcore fans spamming 10's with gmail alts
@@paperplate3995 Well, at least they are way better than those critics. Who are so fake, so self-centered that they can do whatever they want, everything woke turns to crap indeed!
@@leehyun3638 even better is just to ask some trusted friends what they think, they are by far the most reliable source
@@leehyun3638 >implying the mario movie wasn't woke
Fantard blindness
@@STFUGOOGLE420 Hey, at least it makes a lot of money for a good reason.
The reason it's getting good reviews is because it has no bad scenes, now is it obvious that they were playing it safe? Yes, but playing it safe means there was never anything terrible to criticize. In the end you can't really judge a movie for what it could have been.
It reminds me of something an actor said once about saying yes to a project if it had two good scenes and no bad ones
Thats a great way of looking at it
there are no bad scenes but almost none of them fit together to create a coherent plot
I cant really judge a movie based on what i wish it couldve been but i *can* judge the movie for being painfully non-commital. Off the top of my head I can think of zero character development moments with any actual pay off at the end, which is kind of a shame but theres nothing anyone can do about it now
You know Rotten Tomatoes once rated The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie (Not the Michael Bay one, the 1990 one) a 46%.
They basically said that it was Childish and that only kids would like it and adults would find it annoying, despite this film featuring such things as "Adult Language, Themes of Terrorism, grieving and crime, actual deaths, a more gritty tone ALA the original comics." They have no clue what the hell they are talking about.
Mind you, the schism between critics and the movie is not new. _The Sound of Music_ was originally panned by critics in 1965, but after the movie made US$59 million that year (equivalent to $565.34 million now!), the critics had to reassess their views of the movie.
I lost trust in RT about 8 years ago. I’m so sure Hollywood pays them to rig the critics and/or audience scores.
Both. I trusted audience scores into 2019 where they got boosted af, 85% should not be the average score smh
They weren’t trying to make an actual story out of this like most movies try to do
They were trying to make a fun, enjoyable movie about Mario
Mario games don’t really have much of a plot outside of “Mario and allies(sometimes) going to save someone from a big threat”
So obviously, they would have this follow that same concept since it is a Mario movie
if you arent making an actual story out of the movie then whats the point of making the movie
@@paperplate3995 You say it like if the only reason to make a movie were to tell a deep complex story. The point was to make a fun movie that is very faithful to the games and they succeeded, because Mario was never know for its deep storytelling, a simple plot was probably the best choice in this case. That's not to say it couldn't have had a more complex story, but it may even ended up getting in the way of what the movie was trying to achieve, which is to replicate the experience of playing a Mario game as faithful as possible in the format of a movie.
@@stargazer162 it was fun... half the time. the other half was wasted on everything else being underdeveloped. Simple plot is perfectly fine but the mario movie even struggles with that
(does anyone remember how the super star was important for like 3 minutes?)
@@paperplate3995 The star was important pretty much through the whole movie, being brought up pretty soon right as Bowser is introduced, then it was explained how with its power Bowser could defeat everyone else, with the star being the whole reason they would have to fight him in the first place, and it ended up being used at the end to defeat Bowser. It was also mentioned during Bowser's song.
Sure, the time it was actually used was very short, but... well, it's a Mario star, anyone who has played any of the games knows they don't last for long so it was obvious it would only be used for one scene.
Here was the critic review if the critic was being honest:
"Didnt make mario black. Peach wasnt gay. Toad wasnt transgender. 0/10"
The 6/10+ to get "fresh" rating is insane. I now also understand why Rotten Tomatoes is so unreliable.
I think people mis-use or don't understand how TO use the constructive, insightful criticism of film or music (music being a far better example to film than food, the food comparison was silly). I saw the Rotten Tomato score and was not surprised after seeing the movie myself, because you shouldn't be. For the same reason I'm not surprised real music enthusiasts and critics disliked the latest trendy rap/pop album by Drake or whoever. Yes, film critics aren't gonna like this uncompelling STORY of Mario (because the plot is held onto by threads) and rate it as a bad FILM. Because that's what they're critiquing. I know that I loved this movie, but that's because I look for a good time with these types of films and i know that's what I should be expecting. The same way I would go into a (insert artists that make playlist-type albums with no purpose other than to release some new music for their fans) only looking for raw enjoyment and nothing deeper. I trust real critics when it comes to real movies trying to tell really good, impactful narratives, the same way I trust real music critics when I'm looking to be introspective with the music. PS the clip of the movie you showed when you said "but critics only like singing when the actors are crying" or however you said it, was not liked by critics to my knowledge, the singing was really bad in that movie and was a terrible original play-to-movie adaption. Your knocking or downplaying of critically acclaimed films like Black Swan was weird, and feels like a misdirected shot at directors that don't want to make easily consumable media.
Post top 5 albums/kinos/ludos
It's stupid to rate a movie as a bad film just because it has a simple story. And no, the plot isn't held onto by threads.
FYI those same critics gave “Cuties” (a fucked up “movie”) a 90%+
Audiences don’t respect the job of critics anymore. I understand why audiences like the movie but critics’ job is not to agree with them, critics have very different criteria for a good film and people need to chill the fuck out that critics don’t like something they did
This is what fandom does to an otherwise articulate, level-headed writer. The movie's not been "torn apart" by critics, it's been enjoyed by over half of them. You'd know that if you'd paid attention to your own explanation of how RottenTomatoes works.
Likewise, there is no inherent problem between critics and average viewers that hasn't existed since the dawn of review. Reviewers must review whatever is released, average viewers go to see what already interested them, or what they were successfully convinced to see due to marketing. To point out that a movie full of nostalgia, references and fanservice is overwhelmingly appealing to people who choose to be pandered to, but not to a critical eye that might have no love for such a franchise is to lack such a level of media literacy that it begs an accusation of bad faith engagement. And again, despite that condition, it still had just a hair shy of 60% of it's critics recommend it.
But hey, I suppose maybe you're right. Clearly critics just don't understand what truly makes a good film, and are only interested in high art and complex storytelling. Why I bet if you picked something equally full of fanservice and base appeal in a fantasy world, you'd see a consistent lack of cohesion between critic and consumer. Well, look at that, a Dungeons and Dragons movie came out at almost the exact same time! If there was ever a more perfect example, I-oh, oh no. That movie has a positive score that actually lines up with audience. Why, how could this be? What non-hackneyed explanation could possibly account for this double standard?
Completely agree - plus there are as many ways to evaluate movies as there are movie critics. Like with the Top Gun: Maverick example used in the video - all that this guy's established is that he thinks the movie is competently made and entertaining. What if you're evaluating the movie on other criteria - the original Top Gun got a lot of (justified) criticism for its' militarism - what if the critic thinks the politics of the movie stinks?
A lot of these TV Tropes / UA-cam video essays evaluate movies using very prosaic criteria (were there "likeable characters", etc.) but art isn't construction work.
Well said. People dismissing critical reception tend to also dismiss any criticisms of the movie. Sure, some of the critic reviews were ridiculous, but using these cherry-picked examples to make a blanket statement that shuts down any possibility for argument promotes echo chambers. I can enjoy the Mario Movie, but it didn’t really have a lot of substance.
The Super Mario Bros movie fully deserves both of the ratings it has.
Audience 96%: Pretty obvious--people went go see a bunch of Mario-related stuff on-screen, and they got what they wanted in polished and moderately funny form.
Critics 58%: Also obvious, I think? This movie was... flat. It wasn't bad, but it took every interesting idea and concept it offered and then just kinda... trailed off and forgot to do anything with them. It had incredible set-ups for real and powerful emotional beats, and it either flubbed or intentionally ignored all of them.
I don't think it's fair to accuse the Super Mario Bros movie of being a subversive masterpiece that deconstructs ideas about cinema that critics weren't expecting. It was just... kinda lame? If you didn't go in knowing about extensive mario franchises, this movie had nothing for you. It was... funish, and coolish, but it didn't really land anything on its own merit. It was nicely animated, but that's about all it had going for it. It hinged all of its worth on nostalgia-baiting and pretty visuals, and that's fine, but critics are entirely justified in ripping this movie apart. It IS rotten, when you're talking about it in terms of cinema.
Just because something is ~fun~ doesn't make it good. People can enjoy bad or mediocre things. The Super Mario Bros movie was fun and only fun and that's okay, but that's going to resonate with much of the audience that goes out to see this movie. It's not going to resonate with the average uninitiated viewer who doesn't know anything about SMB nor is it going to resonate with someone going out looking for well-made art on screen.