Super Mario Bros the movie

[BitVyper]

Been sittin on this one for years: Everybody always talks shit about this movie, and I just have to say man, fuck those guys. Super Mario Bros the movie is completely fantastic in every way. I can't think of anything I would change about it. It's nonstop fun from beginning to end. The setting is some kind of hilarious parody of Cyberpunk and Mad Max at the same time, the costumes are all colourful and well designed, the sets are great, and the characters are just so much fun to watch. Hooper is absolutely fantastic as Koopa, and whoever the actress that played his uh... secretary/wife/whatever did just a perfect job of acting opposite him. Also this happens. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPiHmqeAe_Q&feature=related)

So yeah basically fuck anyone who talks shit about Super Mario Bros the movie. They are not your friends. If you have not seen Super Mario Bros the movie, you should

[phil_]

Watching that bar scene has me almost intrigued, if only to watch it with the knowledge that, yeah, my mom took me to see this insanity.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

When I was 10, my school made us watch this during the after school program.

I was terrorfied, I'm sorry but it's true. I cannot lie about this movie and how I felt after watching it at age 10.

[Osterbaum]

When I saw the movie for the first time I remember liking it. That was ages ago. Haven't watched it since to see how it holds up. I'm aware of all of the hate though.

[Azisien]

It was shit and you're shit for liking it. I hope you never hold any kind of position of power over any poor soul.

[Bard The 5th LW]

I remember I would watch it when they used to show it on Disney sometimes. It might have been bad but I guess I have some sort of nostalgia filter towards it. Sorta a guilty pleasure.

[Marc v4.0]

Bob Hoskins was a fantastic Mario, and Dennis Hopper was the perfect sort of menecingly clueless over-the-top villian that is King Koopa/Bowser.

Everything else was straight out of WTF Hell.

edit: oh, Iggy and Spike were good for a decent slapstick laugh.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

I think I've managed to somehow purge my entire memory of this movie, I literally can't remember a thing about it.

I'm calling that a good thing.

[Nique]

I liked it as a kid.

I had a Luigi action figure. That green jumpsuit was boss.

[BitVyper]

I love Hooper's Koopa. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTNcj-9-7Dk)

[Osterbaum]

Monkey! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdrlALQVEKM&feature=player_detailpage#t=12s)

[Kim]

I really like Koopa's cleanliness obsession.

[stefan]

the number koopa puts on the wanted posters is still a valid phone number in the US.

[Doc ock rokc]

The movie wasn't worse then the drivel that we normally watched during that time. It wasn't that bad and had a few moments and good character changes. there was however moments and ideas that I think were just retarded. but then again there is hardly a time I go to the movies and not cringe when something stupid happens.

[tacticslion]

First, I have no problem with people liking this film. As in, at all. I, however, really don't, and I'll clarify why below.

The real problem with this movie (for me) lies not in the fact that the movie is bad, per se (after all, I enjoy Hudson Hawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Hawk), a film I'm relatively sure that the Willis ranch is actively attempting to destroy all copies of (url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HudsonHawk)*), but rather because of the simple fact that: it's the Super Mario Brothers movie and it got absolutely everything wrong about Super Mario Brothers, except for the casting of Bob Hopkins as Mario and Yoshi's basic "look". And that's... pretty terrible.

Like, I don't hate the film based on it's merits as a film. It's pretty bad, but that does not make it non-enjoyable. What makes it so frustrating is the complete alteration from anything resembling the Mario franchise, aside from a few names thrown about rather randomly.

Examples:
* King Koopa the Dragon Turtle: reduced to a sleezy guy in a suit prior to de-evolution... then reduced into a mindless T-Rex.

* Luigi: pretty much everything about him is incorrect in most ways. (Save his connection to Daisy... and that's iffy because, at the time, only Mario had any interaction with Daisy)

* Methods of transportation: a meteor and techno-boots are not in Mario. (Well, they sort of are in certain games, but in such a different way that it's unrelatable to the ones in the movie)

* Effects/nature of the Mushrooms (and lacking in fire flowers and stars, trading them for flame throwers and... devolution guns?)

* Goombas: pretty much everything

* Everything else: pretty much all of it

* Mario's girlfriend (wrong name, look, and personality - even if they were going for Paula, the one he left behind in the "real" world), her friend, and Mario's alternate "girlfriend" (the dino-descendent)

It's really funny because, according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Bros._(film)), Shigeru Miyamoto said...
Shigeru Miyamoto, Mario's creator stated, "[In] the end, it was a very fun project that they put a lot of effort into," but also said, "The one thing that I still have some regrets about is that the movie may have tried to get a little too close to what the Mario Bros. video games were. And in that sense, it became a movie that was about a video game, rather than being an entertaining movie in and of itself."

... which I think is completely wrong. It didn't try to get "a little too close" to the game. It tried to (badly) imitate and ape things from the game, but give them "scientific" explanations (which they really, really didn't need) and make the whole thing more "real" (which, again, it really, really didn't need).

As a kid I walked away convincing myself that I liked it. I remember the feelings of confusion and disappointment in the theater, but telling my self that it's Mario, so of course it's good. I couldn't maintain that feeling, however, and the more I thought of it, the more I disparaged it. If it wasn't attached to the Mario franchise? I'd probably be okay with it. I might even enjoy it a great deal. I also might have never seen it. Which is probably the reason it was attached to the Mario franchise: it seems (to me) that it was a completely different script that was attached to the Mario names only after the fact. That might be me being cynical... I might be completely wrong. It just feels all kind of wrong, and it gave a lot of my non-gamer friends even more reason to feel video games (and those who played them) were really strange and not interesting at all.

So is it pretty much just nerdrage? Yeah. But it's nerdrage because it actually made video games (and those who play them) less popular.

And that's terrible (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AndThatsTerrible)*.

* Warning: that's tvtropes. Click at your own risk!

[Magus]

It's a good movie, although with some plot holes (like the Bob-Omb and King Toadstool's constant interventions were pure Deus Ex Machina). But overall a good movie. Just not a good Super Mario Bros. movie.

I mean it's better than all the shitty video game movies that were also shitty movies in and of themselves.

Bed-ice-pipe-slide scene is still the best. Oh, and "the Goombas are dancing again". HAHAHA. Oh. Classic.

[tacticslion]

It's a good movie, although with some plot holes (like the Bob-Omb and King Toadstool's constant interventions were pure Deus Ex Machina). But overall a good movie. Just not a good Super Mario Bros. movie.

I mean it's better than all the shitty video game movies that were also shitty movies in and of themselves.

Bed-ice-pipe-slide scene is still the best. Oh, and "the Goombas are dancing again". HAHAHA. Oh. Classic.

So, I'mma gonna pretend that my entire post was Magus' and his entire post was mine. 'Cause I like the way he phrased it better.

[DarkDrgon]

I dunno, the description bowser gave for the goombas was pretty accurate.

[Ecks]

Did anyone catch the Game Informer article looking into the origins of this waste of film? I watched it once. Only thing I liked out of it was getting Mario and Luigi action figures.

[Magus]

Don't you regret all the things we didn't get out of it, though? Like citywide bumper-car grids to power our cars, or fireball guns for the police to use in high speed chases? Or jetjump shoes?

[Ecks]

Everything but that last one sounds like it would suck.

But fuck me, I'd love me some jetjump shoes.

[BitVyper]

like the Bob-Omb and King Toadstool's constant interventions were pure Deus Ex Machina

That's not deus ex machina. For one thing, they don't actually resolve any aspects of the plot, they only help. For another, while you could almost make an argument for the Bobomb coming out of nowhere (you would be wrong, but you could potentially make the argument), that's definitely not true of King Toadstool. His influence is made clear throughout the entire movie. Deus ex machina folds the entire plot up into a neat little package from pretty much out of nowhere. There's room to stretch the definition a bit, but not that much. King Toadstool is literally everywhere, and people comment on the fungus repeatedly - it's even given a bit of character before it does anything, like how it retreats into itself when Koopa enters the room. The hero getting some help and guidance from an external force is pretty normal. King Toadstool mostly acts as a guide - the fungus doesn't just throw a bobomb at Koopa; it makes one apparent to the brothers. The contrast between how they respond to the situation is a moment of character development for both of them.

Like this stuff with the king and what he's doing is a pretty central aspect of the plot throughout the movie, so I'm not sure how you call it deus ex machina

[Magus]

Well, perhaps it is more of a Chekhov's gun, but used quite unsubtly to "solve" several situations (for example, they are about to fall down the elevator shaft, and the fungus provides a trampoline, or they are about to fall off the cliff in the police car, and the fungus provides a safety net, etc.). The Bob-omb was not the only instance of its use I could criticize. That said, there were plenty of situations not solved in this way.

[ZARAK]

Being high can make this movie surprisingly watchable, it seems.

[Kim]

Well, perhaps it is more of a Chekhov's gun, but used quite unsubtly to "solve" several situations (for example, they are about to fall down the elevator shaft, and the fungus provides a trampoline, or they are about to fall off the cliff in the police car, and the fungus provides a safety net, etc.). The Bob-omb was not the only instance of its use I could criticize. That said, there were plenty of situations not solved in this way.

The ways you listed are all ways that the film establishes that Chekhov's gun is in fact a gun. There are plenty of other "pure luck" ways they could have survived each scenario. The car could have rolled and our suspension of disbelief would have allowed us to believe them crawling out of the wreckage mostly okay. They could have caught onto something while falling down the elevator shaft and used that to get away. Etc. The reasons the fungus saves them in those specific instances is to establish that the fungus 1. May be intelligent. 2. Has an active role in the story. It also helps, as Bit pointed out, to characterize Luigi and Mario via their reactions.

[PyrosNine]

Oh, how I loved this movie! Even as a hyperactiveintelligent youngling, I could tell that it had little or nothing to do with the actual game, but I was still thrilled by it, it was one of those times where the concept met with the technical limitations of reality, and it made a perfectly good movie in spite of the fact that a movie made about two italian plumbers who defeat turtles and evil fungi by crushing them with their body mass to save a humanoid princess and her good fungus people in a magical land where everything has eyes-is a really hard thing to make a film about. Especially at the time: it was the 90's!

Everyone thinks they could have made a better movie, but that's usually with an unlimited budget and with all the amenities we have today for making movies. And if you say, well they should have just made an animated Mario Bros movie...

Well they did! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEzRTKSUICo) Only it was in Japan, because sure as hell Disney wasn't going to make a movie based on a acid trip premised video game. Wiki! (http://www.mariowiki.com/Super_Mario_Bros.:_Peach-hime_Kyushutsu_Dai_Sakusen!)

And I think the quote from shigeru about a movie may have been about this one, though I could be wrong.

The childhood of the 90's was defined by your parents going over to blockbuster and renting some obscure childrens film to go with their chick flicks and oscar winners so you don't whine at them, and then finding yourself sitting through 'unique' experiences.

Much of my tastes as a cinephile come from the stark difference between those early movies, and the gems that I have seen as an adult (see Midnight in Paris, it's great!) and though I have seen some sheer, utter, horrifyingly bad crap from both a technical and a writing standpoint (LAST AIRBENDER....) and I have seen films based on paper/electronic media that when they deviated from the source the result actually made less sense storywise (Most recently, watched D.O.A., and while D.O.A.s plot was kinda stupid to begin with, at least the Ninja quartet didn't sneak into a guarded facility by running in the front door and beating up the security guards...without at least making a bloody mess!) I can say that I think that Super Mario Bros was a fun movie, and it's unique "reimagining" let it go places other kids films at the time didn't.

There was social commentary, dystopian fiction, parallel universes, and a bit of cynicism/skepticism, and scenes that were hiliarious no matter your inclination. Dennis Hopper's "Slimy, Egg sucking, son of a snake" was pretty good. And Yoshi was adorable, and to be honest, OP for any movie. And because of the seemingly extreme translations, most concepts and images were understandable at first glance to even people who didn't know either Mario or science fiction, but still had bits and details that would have immediately caught the attention of either.

Unlike "There will be Brawl (http://therewillbebrawl.com/)" which requires understanding of every nintendo game ever, and "The Brothers Mario (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kk9oa_PiXAk)" which is too hardcore for anyone with a weak heart.

[walkertexasdruid]

It was pretty bad, and I like some questionable stuff.

[Magus]

By the way, did anyone ever suss out why Daisy is the princess of the mushroom people and the daughter of the king who is evolved from the fungus, but for some reason was born from an egg like the dinosaur evolved people would be? Was her mother a dinosaur woman, thus showing how under the king and queen's rule the kingdom's two peoples were united in peace and harmony, thrown into chaos by Bowser's usurpation?

[Kim]

By the way, did anyone ever suss out why Daisy is the princess of the mushroom people and the daughter of the king who is evolved from the fungus, but for some reason was born from an egg like the dinosaur evolved people would be? Was her mother a dinosaur woman, thus showing how under the king and queen's rule the kingdom's two peoples were united in peace and harmony, thrown into chaos by Bowser's usurpation?

I think the implication is that the king was super, super de-evolved. Like, they devolved him all the way back to dinosaur, and then they devolved him even further back to fungus.

[Magus]

Wha, really? I thought there were two distinct lineages going on there...like Toad becomes the one type of Goomba, whereas there are also lizard/dinosaur Goombas. Just the two types. So I thought it was a whole mushroom people v. dinosaur people thing going on.

[Premmy]

Wha, really? I thought there were two distinct lineages going on there...like Toad becomes the one type of Goomba, whereas there are also lizard/dinosaur Goombas. Just the two types. So I thought it was a whole mushroom people v. dinosaur people thing going on.

Toad was also a lizard goomba. I'm pretty sure the king was super-de-evolved

[Osterbaum]

It's flawless!

[Premmy]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sYlT1wrkvU4/TeISbrtH7RI/AAAAAAAAAFw/L-4VtYNQ1KA/s400/08-SMB-Toad.jpg
yyyyyup

[Magus]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-R4yEIz9rG9c/Tt5pt4imEFI/AAAAAAAAJYM/1RBuS6TAm9Q/s1600/mario+bros+movie+dennis+hopper+bowser+goomba+koopa +king+koopa.jpg

There are clearly two types of Goombas here. Is one more devolved than the other?

[Premmy]

I'm pretty sure that's just, like, different races of the same species. It's all lizards/dinosaurs in the end and no mushrooms in sight.

[tacticslion]

AND WE NOW CUT BACK TO THE EXCITING (not really) EN MEDIA RES SCENE (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=41489) WHERE TACTICSLION DEFENDS AN ARGUMENT HE DOESN'T REALLY CARE ABOUT AGAINST KRYLO!! HERE WE GO!!

Krylo: no.

And which would not have worked at all in a movie format. It kept the bare skeleton of the basic plot with the goombas and the mushroom kingdom and the princess, and then rewrote everything necessary to make it work as a 1993 movie, as that a movie about some dude jumping on weird mushroom people to save a princess with no dialogue or characterization of any real sort would not have flown, and they didn't really have the technology to, say, recreate the Super Mario Super Show in live action.

Further, it's still obvious watching the movie that somebody CARED, and not just a little, either. There's a lot of love that went into it which is obvious as you watch the movie.

Except that the changes made were unnecessary and of a completely different caliber. They weren't changes to make it work as a movie, they were changes to allow Michael Bay to fetishize the military. And just... add racism for no real reason. And move the focus of the movie away from the title characters.

When people complain about the changes to the franchise in the Bay movie they have specific complaints as to what changed and why that made it a poor movie.

When people do the same for Super Mario Brothers it's just 'It's nothing like the games' which, itself, isn't really completely true, but just not a similar complaint at all except on a level so b... wait hold on:

Changes: yeah, I know. But there were other ways they could have changed things for a movie format without completely rewriting as much as they did. It came off much more as "hey, here's a movie we have, now let's make it Super Mario Brothers" (aka "square peg, round hole") than, "hey, let's make a Super Mario Brothers movie and make the necessary adaptations to movie format".

Technology: no. The movie was made in 1993. Let's look at a few films then shall we? Jurassic Park. The Crow. The Fugitive. Most notable on that list is, of course, JP, but seriously - each of those used fabulous live-action special effects. 1992 has Batman Returns and Bram Stoker's Dracula. 1991 has Hook, The Adams Family, and friggin' Terminator 2: Judgement Day. 1990 has Ghost, Back to the Future 3, Robocop 2, Total Recall (filled with mutants and strange landscapes/events), and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
BUT! Let's say I give you the point that most of these films used very limited or very specific sets of absolutely excellent special effects. It's true! I mean, it's not as if anyone'd ever created a completely new and impossible fantasy world and integrated it with live action before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth_(film))... oh wait. The thing is, they could have done it. And could have done it well enough with effects which were, by this point, seven years old.

Love: okay, sure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Brothers_(film)). Fascinatingly, however, everyone panned it at the time. It was widely negatively received. Again, for comparison, Labyrinth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth_(film)) was not nearly so negatively received at the time (though it, too, got some mixed reviews). And Labyrinth is a mess. Bob Hoskins and Dennis Hopper both were very vocal about their time working on the movie - and they didn't like it. Shigeru - creator of such amazing things as the Super Mario franchise - was also displeased with the final result, indicating (strangely to me) that it tried to get "a little too close" to the games rather than " rather than being an entertaining movie in and of itself". That last part is important. These were people who, obviously, cared about the production, as they were an important part of it. All of them decried various elements of the film.

Look, as I said in the other thread - I'm not married to hating this film or anything. I'm cool with people enjoying it and liking it for itself. Heck, I like Hudson Hawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Hawk), widely regarded as one of (if not the) worst films of Bruce Willis' career! I, personally, don't like it very much because of the way it treated something I loved and it was a rather large disappointment in that regard. This was mostly my response to your response, got too big and too deraily from the other thread, so I moved it here.

[Premmy]

I think what you're forgetting here is Mario is just intrinsically kind of stupid. It's a little kid's show made into a video game. It is about as complex as Barney or My Little Pony. a feature-length film that kept to the style and "story" of Mario game would be something akin to the Where the Wild Things Are movie at best. Which was good, yes, but wasn't a kids movie so much as a movie about kids. And pretty much went in it's own direction entirely from the book.

[tacticslion]

I think what you're forgetting here is Mario is just intrinsically kind of stupid.

Dude. I like Hudson Hawk. I'm okay with stupid and movies going together.

It's a little kid's show made into a video game. It is about as complex as Barney or My Little Pony.

At that point, it was a little less complicated than MLP, and a bit more than Barney (in some ways... I'd actually say it's more like a lateral movement). Point is, there's not a lot there to make a mistake with. Doesn't mean they didn't make a mistake with it.

Also, it's secretly a video game that was made into a little kid's show. :)
(And into a movie. Which is what we're discussing.)

Example: something I'd be totally okay with.
Except that's not really what this did. Which is okay. It's just not anything remotely resembling a Mario movie.

Again, to clarify, I'd probably be perfectly okay with said movie (probably think it was kind of hokey and weak, but perfectly okay with it) if it were anything other than "Super Mario Brothers". And I'm perfectly okay with people liking it.

That doesn't make it a good movie. That doesn't erase its other flaws. It's a perfectly valid movie for others to enjoy, but not a good movie. Which is fine.

[Premmy]

Except that's not really what this did. Which is okay. It's just not anything remotely resembling a Mario movie.

Again, to clarify, I'd probably be perfectly okay with said movie (probably think it was kind of hokey and weak, but perfectly okay with it) if it were anything other than "Super Mario Brothers". And I'm perfectly okay with people liking it.

That doesn't make it a good movie. That doesn't erase its other flaws. It's a perfectly valid movie for others to enjoy, but not a good movie. Which is fine.
They really did. They just replaced the "Magic" with "science" but yes, they did a WTWTA on this movie and then added science.

[tacticslion]

They really did. They just replaced the "Magic" with "science" but yes, they did a WTWTA on this movie and then added science.

As you like! :)

[Krylo]

I was going to respond but then I got to this: Labyrinth is a mess.

Get out.

[Magus]

Yeah, I think you're only allowed to criticize Labyrinth if the criticism is basically, "Labyrinth just isn't as good as The Dark Crystal."

Like I had someone tell me they didn't like Labyrinth because it had David Bowie in it, and I was just like, "Fuck you."

[tacticslion]

I was going to respond but then I completely misinterpreted something you said as an insult to one of my favorite films (and yours, though I can't know that, as you've not told me yet, and you're adding in this dialogue now after the fact).

Get out.

You presume that I don't like it or think it's bad based off of a fallacious, if understandable interpretation of word choice.

I love that movie. It is, despite my word choice, a good movie. It's also a mess. A glorious, David Bowie-filled mess.

The plot is nonsensical - more so than any of the movies mentioned here so far. There are plot holes everywhere. Complete randomness. Badly done (but amazing) Blue Screen effects (back when it was still Black Screen, point in fact, 'cause they pioneered that field and didn't realize at the time all the artifacts that show up on black screens that don't on blue screens). This is the definition of "mess" used.

Nonetheless, my appreciation of what they did with and in that movie (which, with Dark Crystal remains one of my all-time favorites) has nothing to do with the validity of the other things said.

That said, I'm totally okay with dropping this. I just thought I'd clarify for the sake of you not getting the wrong impression of my opinion of Labyrinth. I'd be glad to talk to you about it in another thread at greater length, as these things tend to get a bit deraily.

EDIT to Magus: My "criticism" has nothing to do with the movie being in any way a "lesser" movie. Heck, it's not even a "flaw". I mean simply that most movies would get badly panned for the stuff Labyrinth gets away with (though it actually earns getting away with by dint of the other things it pulls, such as David Bowie). As I said - it's on the favorites list and is a genuinely good movie. It's still a mess. Dark Crystal is beautiful, though, and I can't come up with flaws for it, that I recall. Wow, that movie is truly lovely. I think I'll watch it again soon. :)