"It's Truly Baffling" - Shigeru Miyamoto Comments On The Mario Galaxy Movie's Critical Reception

That's why I don't base what I watch and play on critic review scores, but by what I think looks interesting to me after finding out what the basic gameplay is.

I don't disagree with him. Movie critics are so snob. They don't understand movies that come from video games and they frequently make nonsensical criticisms because they aren't the target audience and they can't relate to the target audience. Instead of being self aware about this, they treat it like every movie is meant for everyone and therefore is bad if it doesn't appeal or enlighten absolutely everyone.

They are championing the film industry, Miyamoto. You're just exploiting it.

The job of a critic is to criticize what they see; to be negative. It is not their job to "champion" the film industry and simply praise whatever comes out just because it's popular or a major release.

You don't have to like what critics say. You can enjoy flashy Easter egg hunts of films. That's totally fine, but film critics are not wrong for critiquing the film on its merits as a story.

I disagree with Miyamoto, the critics are right. I mean, I understand in videogames there are games with story and games that are just for fun and have no depth. But either way you are interacting with them. In some ways it's like comparing mass produced candy to a michelin star desert. But, a food critic shouldn't be expected to say candy is great because it's sweet, they should review how the candy is and compared to all other foods.

This reads so bloody haughty that I can only assume it's another mistranslation.

If my job was to look at films critically then yeah, I’d rip the film apart and it’d score pretty low. Nobody at Nintendo or Illumination could ever convince me that they tried to make a great film that can stand on its own. But that’s OK- it does what it needs to and it serves the audience(s) that will go see it just fine. It doesn’t need to be a critical darling and I’m sure nobody involved (Miyamoto included) actually cares when these films are making the ridiculous money that they are.

Critics reviewing this movie often compare it with the pacing/structure/narrative of what usual top rated movies align with. But the audience score suggests people don't mind the unique pacing and structure of these movies and that should be accounted for when reviewing them. I think these movies are a unique case and hard to review but that's just my take.

Miyamoto sounds a bit defensive here, wonder if its a bit lost in translation. But nonetheless, while I disagree with him, he's the face of Nintendo and Mario, he's not gonna trash his own movie!

Mario is over 40 years old. Any fandom of something that’s lasted a long time will have a variety of generations that think it should be a certain way. Just look at Star Wars- does it grow up with it’s audience and become more violent and mature, or should it always be aimed at 8 years old olds?

Nintendo chose to make the Mario movies bright, colourful, fill of movement and empty of character depth and plot to aim it at younger fans. Short term with a 2 billion box office you can’t argue they were right, and are likely to be making new young customers who will be experiencing the games soon. But then if they’re not careful, they’re going to drive away fans that want a bit more depth. Hopefully Zelda will be that.

@McGuildicuff the fanbloid breed of critics, on printed and digital platforms alike, doesn't champion any fiction industry - they only parasite on it. So Miyamoto's take is odd indeed, but hardly for the reasons you suggest.

Miyamoto is learning the hard way that success in one medium does not automatically entitle you to success in another.

He's completely correct. I've never seen such harsh reviews for an animated film in my life. Some outlets literally gave it 0/10 and they expect us to take them seriously as critics? It's worth a 3 or 4 for the artistry and animation alone..

Also it's funny how cookie-cutter Marvel films with trite narratives are packed with in-jokes and references and that's a thumbs up, yet when Nintendo do it it's the end of the world

In movies where story is King, I’m not at all surprised that Shigeru Miyamoto, the guy who always believes that his games need less story, is surprised that people are criticizing this new Mario movie for having a weak storyline.

All I see is Miyamoto not even bothering to read what the reviews said about the first film and doubling down on the things that audiences didn’t like. Given the financial success of this film and his continued confusion as to why audiences don’t like it, I doubt the movie approach to Mario will ever change. And that is a bummer.

@DiggleDog I would hardly consider the movie not to be a success despite the critic’s reviews.

@Jeyl Couldn't have said it better myself.

I don't expect a good story when it comes to Nintendo be it games or movies. I do expect to have a good time and despite their flaws the mario movies delivered. They were not masterpieces and at the moment I don't feel the need to revisit them, but that's okay. It happens with some of their games as well.

@mattesdude critical success, I mean.

Mario is kind of a blank slate character by design imo. His plots are stripped back, and he doesn't talk often. If the movie pushed a certain narrative or characterization of Mario in the movie, they risk alienating fans who don't relate to a particular version of Mario.

Honestly thats why I just never cared for the idea of these movies anyways, even if I love the games. Hoping the Zelda movie has a bit more depth given it's relative maturity and depth but not holding my breadth. That said Wes Ball is more promising than Illumination so who knows.

Have critics been harsh on it? I haven't kept up with it past Nintendo Life's review which tracks with what I thought of the first film, which was "Not Bad." I haven't seen the sequel, but it sounds like everything you could possibly expect from a Super Mario movie to me. I mean, unless you are bringing a genuine scenario writer from one of the 90's or 2000's RPGs to do the story for a Mario movie, it isn't going to have a great story to tell.

It was destined to be a fun movie, but never a masterpiece. The source material was used perfectly for this exact roadmap, and it worked. It is a resounding success and I think it should be left at that.

@trobby I'm hardly a Marvel fanatic, but A) most of those films are hardly critic darlings, and B) even those movies have a lot more characterization and narrative development than the Mario movies

He always seemed like the type that worshipped film and it’s industry so it’s surprising to see him so out of touch here especially with how oblivious he is about the way sequels are reviewed, the first sequel almost never gets the shield of novelty from a critic the way a first film would.

There’s nothing baffling about the critical reception at all. Objectively speaking, the movie is devoid of just about everything that makes traditional movies good. The only things it can stand on are its animation quality and spectacle. The critical reception is entirely understandable.

But it doesn’t matter. The movie did what it needed to do: make money while appealing to kids and families. As a Nintendo fan, I loved it. As a movie enjoyer, it’s shallow and surface level. I don’t hate it. But I wouldn’t call it compelling.

@BigRed40 Marvel films definitely don't get put down like Mario Galaxy did, even the very worst are a 5 or 6. But that is probably down to the fact it's been in vogue for years now so a lot of these outlets have reviewers who are fans of the MCU.

We also have to remember the Mario Galaxy movie is ultimately for kids

This should you the difference in how video game and movie reviews are produced. Video game sites depend on the success of the industry to being an audience. Movie critics traditionally are a part of a larger media groups and not dependent on movies being financially successful. This and other differences produces different relationships between reviewer and commodity, which is then reproduced in the reviewers audience. Most people are uncomfortable with the movie critic because the relationship is not one of consumption. This confuses the audience, who generally just want to enjoy things in their ignorance.

I enjoyed the movie but the critics are right. There were a lot of missed opportunities for more emotional depth and meaning inserted into the child-oriented rollercoaster ride. Peach's umbrella seemed like a plot mcguffin that didn't get fully utilized.

Echoing what others said, I personally had a great time with the movie but I wouldn't call it a conventionally great film

I'm surprised to hear he thought they had a point about the first movie, because he and Illumination clearly double and tripled down on the things that made the first movie review poorly.

Movies need character motivations and some kind of emotional core. I don't even need Mario and Luigi's characters explored. This film's plot had a gift-wrapped sentimental hero in Rosalina. I've heard fans say they felt less watching this movie than they did playing the Mario Galaxy game. So forget not re-energizing the film industry, they're not even storytelling to the standard of their video games.

I feel people forgot that a quest storyline is perfectly fine. They have a final destination, meet wacky things along the way, Bowser has a massive yes maybe no character development... It's fine guys! Like this is essentially what a book like The Hobbit was too, and I see that as great literature.

Could they have done more, absolutely! Is it a masterpiece, heck no! Would it have helped if they hadn't spoiled literally everything except 1 thing in the last 15 minutes...also a big yes!

But I feel the criticism is a bit harsh.

Probably a case of Japanese culture being poorly localized with a direct translation. That said, the film is pretty good for its intended audience. I enjoyed watching it with my son and he absolutely loved it.

My view is that critics should take into consideration the target audience for each film in their analysis so the critic might resonate with the readers. Otherwise what is the point?

@Solomon_Rambling
The sugar analogy is super apt.
As visually stimulating as the film was to watch, it left me feeling really empty when reflecting on it right afterwards. I remember buzzing with excitement after the first movie, but for this one all I can think about is all the threads left unresolved and how nothing really left an impact.

The next film could introduce a billion cool characters, but if they don't do anything satisfying with them then whats the point? If the characters aren't characters, they're just 3D models, I can't connect to any of it on any meaningful level.

It's all so vapid, I can't get excited about more of this. I really hope the next one is more like the first movie because otherwise I'm not interested.

Miyamoto. You're a great guy. And as a video game guy, I will forever respect you. But you have to understand that if people don't like your movie, it doesn't make them wrong. They are simply speaking for themselves, not for everybody. Some will love your movie, others won't. It's ok. No need to get on your high horse and make a big stink about it.

Yeah, it could be defensive. I guess he's saying that at least they're trying to make more movies instead of staying in their lane (so-called), a lane that may be contributing to a decline in those kinds of movie interactions. He's probably also calling out the responses for being particularly harsh, as in unfairly so. Which I agree with. To be sure, critics can (and do) make whatever judgments and arguments they want. And my own analysis here is also subjective, but I think some of the reviews of the film have been incredibly heavy-handed and scathing. Like, if it's just a light-plot movie that moves lightning-quick and drops constant easter eggs, okay. That stuff could be better. But is it really BAD because of that? I don't know.
Also, I did see this translated differently on another site, so maybe some of that is being misconstrued. I wish he would explain why he felt that the sequel would be better received, more specifically. I would be interested to hear that. Because he makes it sound like they took the notes and tried to improve. But the consensus seems to be that it was more of the same if not supercharged.

@MrGawain
The first part is often why its frustrating when you get people who talk about how certain fanbases "dont know what they want", when yeah, something which has been around for a long time is bound to have many interpretations and iterations that like you mentioned, will all be looking for something different from said franchise (see also, sonic, FF, etc)

(the following is not part of the reply but more in general)
As for the movie, while i havent seen it yet it does feel like a lot of the criticism ive seen seems to mirror a bunch of the stuff people were critical of the first movie of while the praise also seems similar with things such as the animation and the series easter eggs.

also when it comes to reviews theres also a big responsibility on the reader/listener of said review to take into account on what was said rather than put emphasis on the score, to see if it sounds like something you personally would enjoy, to weigh up the criticisms and how much they sound like they would personally bother you or whether the aspects which are praised are something which are appealing to you.

Storylines have never been Miyamoto's strong point, so maybe veering into making films wasn't the best choice for him.

@moonblastx movies that come from videogames are movies and have to be rated as such. What make a game fun Is different that what make a movie a good product. To this day playing Mario Galaxy still makes me say wow. Not the movie though. It's average at best. The 2023 movie was nominated for Golden Globes If I am not mistaken. This movie on the other hand most likely will not.

I would be happier with a 'less is more' approach to storytelling, but the Galaxy movie was very much an overstuffed rollercoaster ride; plenty of thrill and spectacle, but little on every other level. Serviceable, fun, but devoid of heart & soul, making it more of a trailer of all Mario games mashed together. I think Toad from the movie sums it up well Minor Spoiler for a quote ahead 'So some dinosaur just shows up and he's now part of the group. Cool' shrugs

Maybe they shouldn't have cut all the depth from Rosalina's story. A good movie needs to have relatable characters with actual emotion and inner struggle. I don't mean making it full drama, but there should be at the very least some of that. Otherwise it's just soulless from one scene to another.

They adapted the Mario games perfectly in that they’re a hodge-podge of different obstacles and hurdles. It was never meant to be formed like a Pixar movie.

@Cheez Yeah I disagree here. A food critic might not be expected to like candy just because it is sweet, but they should compare candy to other candy. And if they hate candy in general, maybe their time is better spent on reviewing other foods.
You would rarely see a game critic reviewing a game where they do not like and have experience with the genre as a whole.

Great film! Has a few pacing issues. But I’ll take a third without hesitation

Adding some spoilers for anyone who wasn't seen it.

Normally my tastes in movies align with those of the general audience, not of the critics.

With that said, what should be the template for Mario movies going forward? I actually thought the second movie was better than the first and the references weren't too distracting, I knew they're there and moved on. I went to watch the movie, not to a virtual easter egg/reference hunt. Sure, I thought it ended abruptaly and Peach's Parasol could've been a greater plot tool. Maybe if they were longer movies, 2 hours at most.

There are some exceptions of distracting references but that's because those were integrated into the movie's plot such as the Super Mario Maker trap or the original SMB bridge battle, but even then the latter didn't distract me in thinking it was a reference.
I also cannot really be too angry with some very brief cameos such as Little Mac, Doc Louis and one of the Urban Champions becuase I was more focused on what Yoshi was doing in New York. I missed them the first time, but they didn't make me think less of that scene once I learned of said cameos.

Why is everyone so mean?

@TripleJump I've just asked my uncle, who's half-Japanese and works for a well-known software and hardware producer over there, has just sent me his translation:

And that Nintendoloaf site... 6 out of 10... ? What the **** would they even know, they're just a gaming site, ffs!

I'm a curmudgeon who absolutely loved both movies. I don't understand the criticism lol. I saw this movie with my kids and we all loved it.

@McGuildicuff dam well said

Tho I do think a lot of the criticism went too far. I enjoyed it being a big Nintendo fan, but as a movie knowing nothing about this world it’d be more like a 5/average. Definitely not pushing the art form of film, but it was very fun and visually stunning

Funny Guy. Na, critics did right. If their opinion doesn't suit you, it may be unlucky, you might brought something where the audience wasn't ready yet, or .. well, it just wasn't up to snuff. And I too deem the movie absolutely mediocre, with the kids not really having been "wow'ed" by it. Considering prices for cinema, this was a waste.

I mean I guess I’m in the middle. The movie was kind of weak, but in a way that’s very specific to illumination. All of their movies are like this, kind of. So I wouldn’t say it was particularly worse than other kids movies I’ve seen from that studio. At the same time the criticisms seemed especially harsh, as if this movie in particular was offensively bad, which I just don’t get. Especially complaints about too many Easter eggs or that feels like an advertisement… a lot of the so-called Easter eggs I wouldn’t even count, they’re just things from Mario games I mean, come on. As for the whole thing being an advertisement, I guess so but again more so than any other kids movie with all the merchandise tie-ins? I mean I guess we can say right now that the Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat movies will be giant advertisements for Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat, right? You see, it’s true trivially but it’s unavoidable, it’s baked into the concept. It’s like some critics were bashing the Mario movie for being a Mario movie at all.

There's much more of a plotline in this film but it's still not enough for the critics. They want something deep with a moral lesson to take away from it. Funnily enough what the Barbie movie was critcised for by some people. Instead of just being a fun comedy full of references and meme-able moments, it turned out to be preachy about the plight of women. Which personally I didn't have a problem with, but it was obviously slammed as "woke" by certain people. Imagine the Mario movies did something similar. They were already accused of being "woke" for making Peach into a heroine instead of staying as a typical damsel in distress. The point is, you really can't win or please everyone. It's either not deep enough or too preachy.

Some critics were a bit too harsh (the 0 review was a bit much), but I understand being harsher towards a sequel that doesn't really fix the problems everyone agreed the first one had. You also can't really give it top marks in a world where Pixar, Ghibli and Dreamworks, etc are making stronger kids movies.

"And yet the very people who are supposed to champion the film industry are the ones being so negative; it’s truly baffling."

Not sure what Miyamoto thinks a critic does. It's not about saying, "It's a movie! Brilliant!" to everything.