i think the real problem is the critics that reviewed the mario movie only watched it because they were paid to, and they were not the target audience at all. the audience rated it so high because they were actual fans of the franchise, not just some cuck holder critics with sticks up their asses.
I agree, the way reviewing is monetized turns it into a rat race where everyone is rushing trying to get their opinion out first for the most exposure. On top of that, reviewers say outlandish stuff because it is catchier and more clickable for a headline. If we stop the expectation of reviews needing to be out as soon as a movie is out, I think we will all be better for it. Reviewers will be able to make more educated and thoughtful comments about a movie, instead of just contributing to a hivemind.
However, the concept of a target audience is a little flawed. Great art appeals to our common human condition, and so extends past borders like age, race, and gender. Personally, I think Mario’s story does have a little bit of depth, with the brotherly dynamic between Mario and Luigi (it’s not a lot, don’t get me wrong, but it’s something). So the argument that Mario is made for kids is a little scuffed.
@@wackofeather yeah but when i say "target audience" i ment fans of the mario franchise that where hyped for the movie, and that most paid critics didnt really want to watch it at all
@@jart2927 Oh i see, I misunderstood who you were calling the target audience. Even if so, I think if the Mario movie is good, everyone should be able to enjoy it, even those who aren't fans of Mario. And I do think that Mario does just that; so why do critics still give bad reviews? It's because it gets people talking, and for them bad press is good press. The more outrageous and hivemind-y they are, the more money they make (which is why the way reviews are currently monetized and shared is a problem)
real
i think the real problem is the critics that reviewed the mario movie only watched it because they were paid to, and they were not the target audience at all. the audience rated it so high because they were actual fans of the franchise, not just some cuck holder critics with sticks up their asses.
I agree, the way reviewing is monetized turns it into a rat race where everyone is rushing trying to get their opinion out first for the most exposure. On top of that, reviewers say outlandish stuff because it is catchier and more clickable for a headline. If we stop the expectation of reviews needing to be out as soon as a movie is out, I think we will all be better for it. Reviewers will be able to make more educated and thoughtful comments about a movie, instead of just contributing to a hivemind.
However, the concept of a target audience is a little flawed. Great art appeals to our common human condition, and so extends past borders like age, race, and gender. Personally, I think Mario’s story does have a little bit of depth, with the brotherly dynamic between Mario and Luigi (it’s not a lot, don’t get me wrong, but it’s something). So the argument that Mario is made for kids is a little scuffed.
@@wackofeather yeah but when i say "target audience" i ment fans of the mario franchise that where hyped for the movie, and that most paid critics didnt really want to watch it at all
@@jart2927 Oh i see, I misunderstood who you were calling the target audience. Even if so, I think if the Mario movie is good, everyone should be able to enjoy it, even those who aren't fans of Mario. And I do think that Mario does just that; so why do critics still give bad reviews? It's because it gets people talking, and for them bad press is good press. The more outrageous and hivemind-y they are, the more money they make (which is why the way reviews are currently monetized and shared is a problem)