‘The Super Mario Bros. Movie’ Shows Movie Critics Don’t Get Video Games, But TV Critics Do
‘The Super Mario Bros. Movie’ Shows Movie Critics Don’t Get Video Games, But TV Critics Do
by amburroni
26 Comments
Squish_the_android
This is a weird conclusion to jump to. Maybe Video Games just adapt better to the TV format?
webistrying
This is a garbage editorial that resorts to calling movie critics old and pretentious.
ILoveRegenHealth
Copium everywhere.
Video game movies haven’t been that great, period. The most okay ones are Sonic and that is why it has the highest RT score.
TLOU HBO and Arcane kick every video game movie’s ass. Former will get nominations for Emmys, the latter WON Emmys. They have better scores because they are that much better right now. It’s that simple.
Hot_Membership_5073
TV gives the filmmakers more time to make more complex and complete story. Movies are stuck with Limited screen time to fit everything in. Most adaptations receive cuts as even three hours is not enough time to put in everything. For example the Lord of the Rings movies still cut story beats from the Novel even in their extended versions the most famous being the scouring of the Shire in “Return of the King”.
YOURESTUCKHERE
Reminds me of when Roger Ebert claimed that video games could never be art. The fool.
S_Belmont
>Bowser is a turtle too, if a rather monstrous one — he’s like a fusion of Lionel Barrymore, the Wayland Flowers puppet Madame, and, a T. Rex plushie made for toddlers.”
teh wut
>Wayland Parrott Flowers Jr. was an American actor, comedian and puppeteer. Flowers was best known for the comedy act he created with his puppet Madame.
Born: November 26, 1939, Dawson, Georgia, United States
Died: October 11, 1988, Los Angeles, California, United States
Who on Earth deciding whether or not to see the Super Mario Bros. movie needs it explained to them in terms of puppets from half a century ago? *Who is this clearing anything up for???*
“Ah yes, 1931 academy award winner Lionel Barrymore and the Wayland Flowers puppet Madame. Of course. ‘Twas all of a miasma before, but now I might visualize the beast.”
maverick074
Or maybe a large amount of the audience of the Mario bros movie decided they liked it before they sat down to watch it
bingthebongerryday
I saw the movie with my family earlier this evening. I really enjoyed it. Of course there were a few random moments but I can’t really complain. I loved the animation. There was a good amount of humor. Jack Black KILLED IT as Bowser. And I was happy to hear Seth Rogen do his iconic laugh as Donkey Kong 😂
baxterrocky
I get the impression if you’ve been a fan of Mario for years and have played all the games (like me ☺️) – you’ll get a kick out of it.
If not it won’t be as enjoyable as a lot of the references will be lost on you.
Juanisawesome98
Okay, I guess? I still don’t understand why people don’t watch movies for themselves and form their own opinions, rather than relying on the opinions of others, be it critics or audiences.
Zuldak
Going to be avoiding spoilers. I say nothing that wasn’t shown in trailers
I saw it. It was ok. Honestly more of a mario kart and smash brother’s movie than a super mario movie.
Parts of the movie didn’t feel right. The beginning was kinda convoluted and felt rushed. It picked up when the karts came out. I liked Peach and Bowser. Mario himself… was fine. But I came out liking the villain and the princess most.
trillykins
> So, what’s going on here?
The elephant in the room being that the opinion of the average Rotten Tomatoes user these days isn’t worth shit? Or are we suddenly going to pretend that video game movies are good, actually?
> But I mean, this is also a generation of critics that may be entirely out of touch with this kind of video game adaptation, given lines like this from Variety’s Owen Gleiberman:
>Lionel who? Wayland what? I’m not sure anyone over 50 should be reviewing this movie at all.
I’m surprised they link to the article they’re complaining about being out of touch, because critic in question actually praises the movie and recommends it. I mean, the headline of the article is literally “*The Super Mario Bros. Movie’ Review: Sheer Animated Fun, and the Rare Video-Game Movie That Gives You a Prankish Video-Game Buzz*” and they even gave it a “critic’s pick.” You know, it kind of diminishes the point you’re trying to make, how critics who know about old movies shouldn’t be allowed to review video game movies for some bizarre reason because apparently that makes them out of touch, when the critic gives the movie a positive review.
This article is clickbait garbage.
Dick_Lazer
These mixed reviews actually have me more intrigued to see the movie than if it got great reviews.
NotTwitchy
What we’re seeing here is the age old story of the nebulous collective of “gamers” needing to once again interact with the foreign, yet all too familiar, concept of review scores, and how they relate to movies vs their medium of choice.
When one reviews a game, it’s a multifaceted affair. But, it usually comes down to one primary question: is this engaging? Of course, fun is an impossible concept to quantify, but typically they’ll take into account things like “is the story interesting in some way, are the mechanics novel and/or well executed, is it pleasant to look at due to graphical fidelity and/or artistic design, does it function without too many bugs or glitches?”
Games can be engaging in one way without necessarily checking all the other boxes. Take “The last of us” for example. The gameplay is fairly standard third person action with some stealth elements. But its story is well executed, despite what fans have complained about for years. (Pro gamer tip: just because you don’t agree with a characters actions, doesn’t make them a poorly written character.)
Movies (and tv) have fewer facets to judge. The big one is of course the plot. Of course, the acting is important, and you’ll likely see mention of cinematography, and maybe score. But because the movie can’t really be engaging in a mechanical way, they need to focus on how it can be. This typically means things like “was the premise well executed, did the characters have meaning and motivation beyond ‘I must drive the plot forward’, did the movie make me think beyond ‘this is what is happening on screen at the moment’?”
So, gamers come into a movie like Mario, and see “it checks the boxes to make a good movie! It looks good, the actors aren’t phoning it in, the plot moves from A to B, and I enjoyed myself! Why is that bad?!” While a movie critic will likely ask things like “Is there a reason for me to see this other than ‘I already like Mario’?”
Here’s the thing. The big secret Hollywood is “keeping” from you. No one is telling you that you’re not allowed to enjoy a movie the amorphous collective of ‘the critics’ didn’t like. They’re entertainment. You’re allowed to watch a movie because it’s fun for two hours. It doesn’t need to make you think. Hell, I enjoyed Jurassic world (the first one. We don’t talk about the other two) and I could also spend hours tearing it apart for being a ‘bad movie.’ But it has a T. rex and velociraptor team up to beat the evil dinosaur and that makes my brain happy.
Critics aren’t here to tell you what you should and should not enjoy. They’re not here to tell you what you’re supposed to like. They’re here to engage in the medium on a slightly higher level than the average audience because that’s what they’re paid to do. To ask questions the audience might not think of. To point out things (to quote RLM) “that you might not notice, but your brain sure did” that make a movie more than the sum of its parts. To show people that you can look beyond the surface level to find deeper meaning, and that’s okay. To treat movies like *art* instead of just a product you consume and move on from, because that’s what they are. Something with the potential to be profoundly beautiful and moving in ways that go beyond just images on a screen.
Something video games can be, and have been before.
Maybe more game critics could learn a lesson from their movie critic cousins, and treat games as more than just a product.
NotYetSoonEnough
Have we heard what Ja Rule thinks about it yet
MarcsterS
Now to be fair, TLOU from the beginning, even as game, wasn’t really made as a “game”. It was already structured in a complete story, with visuals and sets easily reproduced in a realistic environment. It was made with the intention of appealing to people who don’t play games. And the show took that further. Uncharted was the same way, but that didn’t hit the mark because the TLOU showrunners tried harder.
Mario games have been pure gameplay. There’s not a lot of story or even character development. The Mario movie probably has the most character moments in a main Mario you’ll ever see(and it wasn’t even that much.)
Transhumaniste
The movie was great, they understood Mario was a game and not juste lore. They didn’t try to justify the mushroom kingdom etc because most people already know it. They also did great when it comes to character development. Finally, the movie was beautiful.
TheLAriver
Lol this is an extremely patronizing view of gamers as people with lower standards
> There have been approximately 50 movies based on video games, and most of them are terrible. I’ve had limited patience even for the ones that “work,” like the coolly depersonalized “Resident Evil” series or that first “Lara Croft” film. It’s not that I’m hostile to video games; it’s that the game and film mediums are so different. Then again, not all video games are the same — the funky nihilist hellscapes of Grand Theft Auto couldn’t be further removed from the interactive innocence of the Mario franchise. Mario presides over a digital playground that lifts the spirit to a place of split-second wonder, and “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” stays true to that. Its ingenuity is infectious. You don’t have to be a Mario fan to respond to it, but the film is going to remind the millions who are why they call it a joystick.
mysticzarak
I saw a critic say that Bowser wanting to marry Peach was problematic and is harmful for children. Also that Mario turning into a cat is weird and takes away from the character. Like what.
Spyhop
Most of you are rushing to defend a movie you haven’t seen yet. (I’m aware a few have seen it now.)
There are valid concerns about this movie going in. The most glaring being Chris Pratt as Mario. But also Illumination isn’t known for producing top-quality content.
I’m reserving judgement until I see it on Sunday. But I feel like this movie shouldn’t get an automatic pass just because it’s Mario. And I think you guys should maybe see it first before having an opinion about how good it is.
mightynifty_2
This is such a strange article. The example brought up bad movies and (mostly) good TV shows. Sonic and Mario movies are nowhere near the quality of Arcane, Last of Us, and Cyberpunk. It has nothing to do with the medium aside from the possibility that movie producers are less willing to stay true to the source material if they deem it as “risky” while TV producers want to stand out among the endless sea of other shows. It has nothing to do with critics.
If you honestly think that a movie based if God of War, Bioshock, Uncharted, Assassin’s Creed, Bloodborne, Fallout, Metal Gear, etc. can’t possibly work you’re shortsighted. The problem isn’t critics or that games are unadaptable into movies, the problem is that big studios are run by old men who still think video games are them there Nintendos the kids are playing. Hopefully with the success of Sonic and Mario, we can get a bit more investment into movies based on games, but we’ll have to wait and see.
jokersflame
Holy shit the levels of cope
kdkseven
This is dumb.
filmmaker30
“ Bowser is a turtle too, if a rather monstrous one — he’s like a fusion of Lionel Barrymore, the Wayland Flowers puppet Madame, and, a T. Rex plushie made for toddlers.”
These references oh my goddddd
This critic must be 1000
Fidodo
It’s wild how wildly the fan sentiment of this movie has swung. When it was unveiled everyone was making so much fun of it, but now everyone’s absolutely singing its praises. I haven’t seen anything like this since, well, the Sonic Movie, so not actually that long, but still. There’s so many similarities it almost makes it feel like a strategy.
26 Comments
This is a weird conclusion to jump to. Maybe Video Games just adapt better to the TV format?
This is a garbage editorial that resorts to calling movie critics old and pretentious.
Copium everywhere.
Video game movies haven’t been that great, period. The most okay ones are Sonic and that is why it has the highest RT score.
TLOU HBO and Arcane kick every video game movie’s ass. Former will get nominations for Emmys, the latter WON Emmys. They have better scores because they are that much better right now. It’s that simple.
TV gives the filmmakers more time to make more complex and complete story. Movies are stuck with Limited screen time to fit everything in. Most adaptations receive cuts as even three hours is not enough time to put in everything. For example the Lord of the Rings movies still cut story beats from the Novel even in their extended versions the most famous being the scouring of the Shire in “Return of the King”.
Reminds me of when Roger Ebert claimed that video games could never be art. The fool.
>Bowser is a turtle too, if a rather monstrous one — he’s like a fusion of Lionel Barrymore, the Wayland Flowers puppet Madame, and, a T. Rex plushie made for toddlers.”
teh wut
>Wayland Parrott Flowers Jr. was an American actor, comedian and puppeteer. Flowers was best known for the comedy act he created with his puppet Madame.
Born: November 26, 1939, Dawson, Georgia, United States
Died: October 11, 1988, Los Angeles, California, United States
Who on Earth deciding whether or not to see the Super Mario Bros. movie needs it explained to them in terms of puppets from half a century ago? *Who is this clearing anything up for???*
“Ah yes, 1931 academy award winner Lionel Barrymore and the Wayland Flowers puppet Madame. Of course. ‘Twas all of a miasma before, but now I might visualize the beast.”
Or maybe a large amount of the audience of the Mario bros movie decided they liked it before they sat down to watch it
I saw the movie with my family earlier this evening. I really enjoyed it. Of course there were a few random moments but I can’t really complain. I loved the animation. There was a good amount of humor. Jack Black KILLED IT as Bowser. And I was happy to hear Seth Rogen do his iconic laugh as Donkey Kong 😂
I get the impression if you’ve been a fan of Mario for years and have played all the games (like me ☺️) – you’ll get a kick out of it.
If not it won’t be as enjoyable as a lot of the references will be lost on you.
Okay, I guess? I still don’t understand why people don’t watch movies for themselves and form their own opinions, rather than relying on the opinions of others, be it critics or audiences.
Going to be avoiding spoilers. I say nothing that wasn’t shown in trailers
I saw it. It was ok. Honestly more of a mario kart and smash brother’s movie than a super mario movie.
Parts of the movie didn’t feel right. The beginning was kinda convoluted and felt rushed. It picked up when the karts came out. I liked Peach and Bowser. Mario himself… was fine. But I came out liking the villain and the princess most.
> So, what’s going on here?
The elephant in the room being that the opinion of the average Rotten Tomatoes user these days isn’t worth shit? Or are we suddenly going to pretend that video game movies are good, actually?
> But I mean, this is also a generation of critics that may be entirely out of touch with this kind of video game adaptation, given lines like this from Variety’s Owen Gleiberman:
>Lionel who? Wayland what? I’m not sure anyone over 50 should be reviewing this movie at all.
I’m surprised they link to the article they’re complaining about being out of touch, because critic in question actually praises the movie and recommends it. I mean, the headline of the article is literally “*The Super Mario Bros. Movie’ Review: Sheer Animated Fun, and the Rare Video-Game Movie That Gives You a Prankish Video-Game Buzz*” and they even gave it a “critic’s pick.” You know, it kind of diminishes the point you’re trying to make, how critics who know about old movies shouldn’t be allowed to review video game movies for some bizarre reason because apparently that makes them out of touch, when the critic gives the movie a positive review.
This article is clickbait garbage.
These mixed reviews actually have me more intrigued to see the movie than if it got great reviews.
What we’re seeing here is the age old story of the nebulous collective of “gamers” needing to once again interact with the foreign, yet all too familiar, concept of review scores, and how they relate to movies vs their medium of choice.
When one reviews a game, it’s a multifaceted affair. But, it usually comes down to one primary question: is this engaging? Of course, fun is an impossible concept to quantify, but typically they’ll take into account things like “is the story interesting in some way, are the mechanics novel and/or well executed, is it pleasant to look at due to graphical fidelity and/or artistic design, does it function without too many bugs or glitches?”
Games can be engaging in one way without necessarily checking all the other boxes. Take “The last of us” for example. The gameplay is fairly standard third person action with some stealth elements. But its story is well executed, despite what fans have complained about for years. (Pro gamer tip: just because you don’t agree with a characters actions, doesn’t make them a poorly written character.)
Movies (and tv) have fewer facets to judge. The big one is of course the plot. Of course, the acting is important, and you’ll likely see mention of cinematography, and maybe score. But because the movie can’t really be engaging in a mechanical way, they need to focus on how it can be. This typically means things like “was the premise well executed, did the characters have meaning and motivation beyond ‘I must drive the plot forward’, did the movie make me think beyond ‘this is what is happening on screen at the moment’?”
So, gamers come into a movie like Mario, and see “it checks the boxes to make a good movie! It looks good, the actors aren’t phoning it in, the plot moves from A to B, and I enjoyed myself! Why is that bad?!” While a movie critic will likely ask things like “Is there a reason for me to see this other than ‘I already like Mario’?”
Here’s the thing. The big secret Hollywood is “keeping” from you. No one is telling you that you’re not allowed to enjoy a movie the amorphous collective of ‘the critics’ didn’t like. They’re entertainment. You’re allowed to watch a movie because it’s fun for two hours. It doesn’t need to make you think. Hell, I enjoyed Jurassic world (the first one. We don’t talk about the other two) and I could also spend hours tearing it apart for being a ‘bad movie.’ But it has a T. rex and velociraptor team up to beat the evil dinosaur and that makes my brain happy.
Critics aren’t here to tell you what you should and should not enjoy. They’re not here to tell you what you’re supposed to like. They’re here to engage in the medium on a slightly higher level than the average audience because that’s what they’re paid to do. To ask questions the audience might not think of. To point out things (to quote RLM) “that you might not notice, but your brain sure did” that make a movie more than the sum of its parts. To show people that you can look beyond the surface level to find deeper meaning, and that’s okay. To treat movies like *art* instead of just a product you consume and move on from, because that’s what they are. Something with the potential to be profoundly beautiful and moving in ways that go beyond just images on a screen.
Something video games can be, and have been before.
Maybe more game critics could learn a lesson from their movie critic cousins, and treat games as more than just a product.
Have we heard what Ja Rule thinks about it yet
Now to be fair, TLOU from the beginning, even as game, wasn’t really made as a “game”. It was already structured in a complete story, with visuals and sets easily reproduced in a realistic environment. It was made with the intention of appealing to people who don’t play games. And the show took that further. Uncharted was the same way, but that didn’t hit the mark because the TLOU showrunners tried harder.
Mario games have been pure gameplay. There’s not a lot of story or even character development. The Mario movie probably has the most character moments in a main Mario you’ll ever see(and it wasn’t even that much.)
The movie was great, they understood Mario was a game and not juste lore. They didn’t try to justify the mushroom kingdom etc because most people already know it. They also did great when it comes to character development. Finally, the movie was beautiful.
Lol this is an extremely patronizing view of gamers as people with lower standards
Embarrassing to post this
The irony of this article is that [the review it quotes](https://variety.com/2023/film/reviews/the-super-mario-bros-review-chris-pratt-anya-taylor-joy-jack-black-1235572328/) to show that film critics are out of touch pretentious types is actually a rave:
> There have been approximately 50 movies based on video games, and most of them are terrible. I’ve had limited patience even for the ones that “work,” like the coolly depersonalized “Resident Evil” series or that first “Lara Croft” film. It’s not that I’m hostile to video games; it’s that the game and film mediums are so different. Then again, not all video games are the same — the funky nihilist hellscapes of Grand Theft Auto couldn’t be further removed from the interactive innocence of the Mario franchise. Mario presides over a digital playground that lifts the spirit to a place of split-second wonder, and “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” stays true to that. Its ingenuity is infectious. You don’t have to be a Mario fan to respond to it, but the film is going to remind the millions who are why they call it a joystick.
I saw a critic say that Bowser wanting to marry Peach was problematic and is harmful for children. Also that Mario turning into a cat is weird and takes away from the character. Like what.
Most of you are rushing to defend a movie you haven’t seen yet. (I’m aware a few have seen it now.)
There are valid concerns about this movie going in. The most glaring being Chris Pratt as Mario. But also Illumination isn’t known for producing top-quality content.
I’m reserving judgement until I see it on Sunday. But I feel like this movie shouldn’t get an automatic pass just because it’s Mario. And I think you guys should maybe see it first before having an opinion about how good it is.
This is such a strange article. The example brought up bad movies and (mostly) good TV shows. Sonic and Mario movies are nowhere near the quality of Arcane, Last of Us, and Cyberpunk. It has nothing to do with the medium aside from the possibility that movie producers are less willing to stay true to the source material if they deem it as “risky” while TV producers want to stand out among the endless sea of other shows. It has nothing to do with critics.
If you honestly think that a movie based if God of War, Bioshock, Uncharted, Assassin’s Creed, Bloodborne, Fallout, Metal Gear, etc. can’t possibly work you’re shortsighted. The problem isn’t critics or that games are unadaptable into movies, the problem is that big studios are run by old men who still think video games are them there Nintendos the kids are playing. Hopefully with the success of Sonic and Mario, we can get a bit more investment into movies based on games, but we’ll have to wait and see.
Holy shit the levels of cope
This is dumb.
“ Bowser is a turtle too, if a rather monstrous one — he’s like a fusion of Lionel Barrymore, the Wayland Flowers puppet Madame, and, a T. Rex plushie made for toddlers.”
These references oh my goddddd
This critic must be 1000
It’s wild how wildly the fan sentiment of this movie has swung. When it was unveiled everyone was making so much fun of it, but now everyone’s absolutely singing its praises. I haven’t seen anything like this since, well, the Sonic Movie, so not actually that long, but still. There’s so many similarities it almost makes it feel like a strategy.