Welcome to the farms, boyo
Animated Atrocities Animated Atrocities #84: Mars Needs Moms -
- Thread starter chimpburgers
- Start date
-
Sister services, email, and search will continue to be negatively effected by the attacks. I made a thread to talk about it, if you're into networking.
What if you want to die after the review? Can we use a strong drink then?
I love this game, already.
Sure, why not?
Currently typing this from the hospital. Had to get my stomach pumped. I recommend no one seriously try this unless they have a strong tolerance for alcohol or a vested interest in the afterlife.
I'm sitting next to my friend who's watching the review. It amazes me how upset he gets about Milo only getting scared when the lights turn off. I don't want to sperg about deeper implications of fucking Mars Needs Moms, but to me it feels like Enter doesn't even sit down and think "why?". Because there are reasons why they might have done that, like childrens' fear of the dark or something. I don't want to give Mars Needs Moms too much credit, but as a critic Enter should be sitting down and thinking about things, not regurgitating the first thing he thought when he watchs through a work. Even if there's not some deep reason, maybe he should sit down and say "Maybe this isn't even worth mentioning."
And he doesn't consider the target audience. Outdated slang is painful to him, but it's funny to kids who hear it as silly words. He gets upset at the quality of English spoken by a child and an alien. He doesn't understand why a boy on the verge of losing his mother seems to not focus on his completely safe and distant father. He gets upset that the adult is a mistakenly "better written child" than the child, while childish adults is a common trope that amuses children. You could go on and on and pretty much nitpick his entire review the way that he nitpicks this movie, because his review sure seems to have even more legitimate bad point than the actual movie does.
I don't remember ever taking as much issue with one of his reviews as I do this one. I think at one point, I wrote a comment saying "oh, well people seem to agree that his reviews on legitimately bad things are alright." So much for that. (I think I got an Optimistic rating for that too, honestly.)
This was supposed to be his big, $150 review? Because he certainly didn't treat it that way.
EDIT:
Just before scolding the movie for touting nuclear families as the correct model, he says that "ideally you should find a partner before having a child", but life isn't always ideal. This ignores any other model of a family and only acknowledges non-nuclear families as accidents.
So basically, he's saying the same implication that he criticizes the movie for making. If anything, he's making it worse by implying you couldn't WANT any other family model.
And he doesn't consider the target audience. Outdated slang is painful to him, but it's funny to kids who hear it as silly words. He gets upset at the quality of English spoken by a child and an alien. He doesn't understand why a boy on the verge of losing his mother seems to not focus on his completely safe and distant father. He gets upset that the adult is a mistakenly "better written child" than the child, while childish adults is a common trope that amuses children. You could go on and on and pretty much nitpick his entire review the way that he nitpicks this movie, because his review sure seems to have even more legitimate bad point than the actual movie does.
I don't remember ever taking as much issue with one of his reviews as I do this one. I think at one point, I wrote a comment saying "oh, well people seem to agree that his reviews on legitimately bad things are alright." So much for that. (I think I got an Optimistic rating for that too, honestly.)
This was supposed to be his big, $150 review? Because he certainly didn't treat it that way.
EDIT:
Just before scolding the movie for touting nuclear families as the correct model, he says that "ideally you should find a partner before having a child", but life isn't always ideal. This ignores any other model of a family and only acknowledges non-nuclear families as accidents.
So basically, he's saying the same implication that he criticizes the movie for making. If anything, he's making it worse by implying you couldn't WANT any other family model.
Last edited:
When your review makes people want to defend fuckin' Mars Needs Moms, you did something wrong.
You're not alone. I too miss the late 90s/early 2000s web designs.
@BustedArmchair: Well, now I'm finally satisfied, hehe.
@Steamboat_Bill Cool.
Similar threads
The Hindenburg on which Rooster Teeth rests its hopes, dreams and future
