If Disney was paying for good scores, then Mufasa would have had good scores.
But you point out Mufasa didn't have good scores, which disproves your assumption (which has no proof, see below).
So, you've proved Disney doesn't pay for good reviews.
Your response to that is basically, "Oh, for *this* movie with bad reviews they didn't pay for them!"
Why wouldn't Disney, if they pay for good reviews, haven't already paid for them?
This is classic conspiracy theory. That when shown that ones 'theory' fails the logic test, the conspiracist comes up with an unlikely scenario (without proof) to show that they're assumptions (made without proof) are correct.
The second rebuttal to your mere surmising is this: No proof of any payola. There would be a paper trail of money. There would be disgruntled Disney employees or a reviewer who didn't think they got treated right (or they grew a conscience) who would have spilled the beans and put actual proof out there for all to see.
This falls in the fake moon landing conspiracy realm in which people believes the hundreds, if not thousands (including foreign governments) are all in on the deception with no one ever having blown the whistle.
To believe there is widespread review-buying is to believe also in an even more incredulous situation in which hundreds of people have kept silent on this deception.
You position on review-buying is unfounded, unproven, conspiracy theory. It exists only in your mind.
