Animated Atrocities Animated Atrocities #84: Mars Needs Moms -

Jewelsmakerguy

Domo Arigato
kiwifarms.net
The Mister Enter Drinking Game
RULES:
1. Choose a random Animated Atrocity
2. Choose your drink, preferably something not too strong or you'll be dead by the end of the review
3. Every time Enter says "Literally", everyone takes a shot
4. Every time Enter overthinks something, everyone takes a shot
5. Every time Enter calls a character "Mean Spirited", everyone takes a shot
6. If someone groans, they take a shot
7. If it's a show that someone enjoys, they have to take a shot
8. Last person to join Enter in saying "What I'm doing is wrong, I know it's wrong, but I'm gonna do it anyway" has to chug it all
What if you want to die after the review? Can we use a strong drink then?
 

Shokew

Trial by Fire! Trial by Fire!
kiwifarms.net
The Mister Enter Drinking Game
RULES:
1. Choose a random Animated Atrocity
2. Choose your drink, preferably something not too strong or you'll be dead by the end of the review
3. Every time Enter says "Literally", everyone takes a shot
4. Every time Enter overthinks something, everyone takes a shot
5. Every time Enter calls a character "Mean Spirited", everyone takes a shot
6. If someone groans, they take a shot
7. If it's a show that someone enjoys, they have to take a shot
8. Last person to join Enter in saying "What I'm doing is wrong, I know it's wrong, but I'm gonna do it anyway" has to chug it all

I love this game, already.
 

Ferls

Not Farael
kiwifarms.net
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 Outdated slang is painful to him, but it's funny to kids who hear it as silly words.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.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

The Hindenburg on which Rooster Teeth rests its hopes, dreams and future
Replies
5K
Views
736K
Manosphere shakaama
Schizophrenic black MGTOW with a weird voice
Replies
17
Views
10K
Top