The Super Mario Bros. Movie not doing that great...

[Phroobar]

Isn’t there another spider verse movie?

That will take care of it

That's right. I forgot about that. So we
Spiderman across the Spider-verse
Super Mario Bros / Migration
Wish
Elemental
Indie project

 

[Ghost93]

It was Better

Guillermo del toro is one of those classic Hollywood people that everyone loves but you can’t really explain why?

In my opinion, Del Toro's Pinocchio was much more powerful and impactful than Puss and Boots: The Last Wish. It was also one of the few animated movies that felt like it was a director's unfiltered vision, not tampered by executive meddling or concerns about profitability.

Don't get me wrong, Puss and Boots: The Last Wish is an above-average children's film — certainly better than Disney's 2022 animated movies. But Del Toro's Pinocchio stayed with me long after the movie ended.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

In my opinion, Del Toro's Pinocchio was much more powerful and impactful than Puss and Boots: The Last Wish. It was also one of the few animated movies that felt like it was a director's unfiltered vision, not tampered by executive meddling or concerns about profitability.

Don't get me wrong, Puss and Boots: The Last Wish is an above-average children's film — certainly better than Disney's 2022 animated movies. But Del Toro's Pinocchio stayed with me long after the movie ended.

I can totally see that…
My priorities are just different on animation.

 

[erasure fan1]

Of course Mario did what it set out to do it is making bank…As an adult without kids who only has passing knowledge of the games it was not entertaining…

Exactly. It wasn't made for you, and there's nothing wrong with that. Nintendo said, here's a Mario movie, if you don't know the brand, oh well, we don't care. They weren't willing to change it and I think that's great. Like I've said, Disney could learn a few things from this.

 

[Phroobar]

Exactly. It wasn't made for you, and there's nothing wrong with that. Nintendo said, here's a Mario movie, if you don't know the brand, oh well, we don't care. They weren't willing to change it and I think that's great. Like I've said, Disney could learn a few things from this.

Just like no one in my family cares about Disney princesses, therefore we won't be seeing Wish until it is on Disney+ in the background while the dishes are being done.

 

[WDWmazprty]

Not every movie needs to be a blockbuster. Look how Disney's movie timeline has continued with just "ok" type of movies that while enjoyable and entertaining were not bombastic but provided a brief escape. Lots of the traditional studios are now stuck in the boom or bust cycle where they gamble hundreds of millions of dollars on each movie while taking solid story frameworks and adding in one or more virtue-signaling subplots that add little or nothing to its narrative.

Right, thats what I was saying. It wasn't a blockbuster and it was still an enjoyable movie.

 

[DKampy]

Exactly. It wasn't made for you, and there's nothing wrong with that. Nintendo said, here's a Mario movie, if you don't know the brand, oh well, we don't care. They weren't willing to change it and I think that's great. Like I've said, Disney could learn a few things from this.

Yeah maybe I don’t get it… I watch many types of films.and try to remain objective… I just found the plot thin and it seemed full of member berries to me

I am a huge Star Wars fan… and I would like less relying on what came before… the galaxy is vast…there are other parts of the universe to explore… how many times do we need to go back to Tatooine… my fav Disney plus show was Andor and the member berries were limited

 

[erasure fan1]

Yeah maybe I don’t get it… I watch many types of films.and try to remain objective… I just found the plot thin and it seemed full of member berries to me

If you don't play the games, it won't make much sense. If you do play the games, there's still not much to it. The games don't have much of a story and the creator wanted that reflected in the film.

I am a huge Star Wars fan… and I would like less relying on what came before… the galaxy is vast…there are other parts of the universe to explore… how many times do we need to go back to Tatooine… my fav Disney plus show was Andor and the member berries were limited

Really I think we all would. That's why I say Disney could learn something from Mario. Because if you are going to do something like the sequels. You absolutely should rely on what came before. Stay true to that original material. It's why I've been saying, even before Disney bought Lucas, stay away from continuing the OT. Either go Kotor or 500+ yrs after RotJ. If you aren't going to do your most famous well loved characters justice, just don't do it. And I know, there are some people who liked what they did with the big 3. But if that was the majority, we wouldn't be going at leas 7yrs between films.

 

[flynnibus]

If you don't play the games, it won't make much sense. If you do play the games, there's still not much to it. The games don't have much of a story and the creator wanted that reflected in the film.

I disagree - there is plenty of simple purpose laid out in the film that anyone can digest.

Under appreciated guy doubtful of his confidence gets trapped in an alt universe and gets separated from his family. Needs to go on adventure to find said family. Stumbles upon allies, who also are under a pending threat of destruction from bad guy, who also rules the area where said family is thought to be. Team up happens to rescue family and defeat bad guy threat.

Plenty of simple purpose and the reasoning for others like the Kongs and saving brooklyn all fit purpose for the characters as well.

Story or plot is not what the movie lacks. You could argue it lacks complexity or nuance... but outside of formula I think it does a decent job of avoiding obvious next steps.

I think what the movie really DOESN'T have is a lot of character development, and that is where the film relies the most on 'prior knowledge'. But they do invest in setting up Mario and Luigi to show their advancement in confidence and acceptance.

Really I think we all would. That's why I say Disney could learn something from Mario. Because if you are going to do something like the sequels. You absolutely should rely on what came before. Stay true to that original material. It's why I've been saying, even before Disney bought Lucas, stay away from continuing the OT. Either go Kotor or 500+ yrs after RotJ. If you aren't going to do your most famous well loved characters justice, just don't do it. And I know, there are some people who liked what they did with the big 3. But if that was the majority, we wouldn't be going at leas 7yrs between films.

Disney had good reason to introduce new characters and new stories -- they just did a horrible job with their writing. People weren't desperate for the OT again (which Disney did), nor did they have to stay away from it completely (nearly all the D+ content has shown this period can be done well). The sequels sucked because they were contrived, bad characters, and bad writing.

 

[erasure fan1]

Disney had good reason to introduce new characters and new stories -- they just did a horrible job with their writing. People weren't desperate for the OT again (which Disney did)

It was horrible writing because they decided to bring down the legacy characters to prop up the new characters. Notice Nintendo didn't make the Super Mario movie a story about Super Angelo. They played up the sequels as a return of your heroes. Then BAM! (In my best dark helmet voice) FOOLED YOU!!!!!

I agree, I don't think people were desperate for the OT. But they were ready to see their heroes go on one last adventure. Especially since that was the bill of goods we were sold.

 

[BrianLo]

I liked it far more than I thought I would, mostly because I’m really not an Illumination fan. But I’m decidedly in that Mario nostalgia camp though. I really thought they did a great job.

Yes it’s a paper thin story with brisk rush from setpiece to set piece. But it really landed in terms of look, feel, music, etc.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Is this where I sign up for the schadenfreude that Nintendo is eating Disney's lunch? We took the kids to see Mario on Thursday and it was everything that Disney has forgotten how to do. Joy, happiness, fun, humor. No Oscar-bait bullcrap. Just colorful heroes battling colorful villains, and the good guys win in the end. Disney hasn't defeated a memorable villain since 2010. Oh and it's making giant piles of money. You love to see it. The only thing Bob Iger likes more than virtue signaling is giant piles of money, so maybe this will be a wakeup call.

I mean. "Mario, Luigi, and a-Donkey Kong too. A thousand troops'a Koopas couldn't keep me from you," performed by Jack Black doing Bowser if Bowser was a member of Tenacious D. That's cinema. The executives at Disney have sticks so far up their own backsides that they would never let something so fun into one of their movies.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I still find it entertaining when the people here discount the power of video games. An industry that makes more money than ANY other media source. My kids have gone to, count them, ZERO Disney animated films in the last 2 years. But they were at Mario opening weekend.

It's funny how those people are pretty quiet now. I'm still not sure why so many discount video games as some sort of niche thing. I get all sorts of flack for suggesting Disney should go after something like Minecraft for the parks. Nah, it's only sold a measley 238 BILLION $$$$.

That should be a big takeaway from this. Unfortunately at the rate Disney does anything it would take an absolute miracle to have any sort of real answer in less than 5 or 6 years.

My hot take on video games was that I didn't think Mario in particular would translate well to a theme park environment. I thought the cartoony art style would make everything feel plastic like the Simpsons land or Art of Animation, where I prefer the more realistic "lived in" aesthetic of Animal Kingdom and Frontierland. Obviously I was wrong.

 

[erasure fan1]

Is this where I sign up for the schadenfreude that Nintendo is eating Disney's lunch?

Sure is, join the fun.

We took the kids to see Mario on Thursday and it was everything that Disney has forgotten how to do. Joy, happiness, fun, humor. No Oscar-bait bullcrap. Just colorful heroes battling colorful villains, and the good guys win in the end. Disney hasn't defeated a memorable villain since 2010. Oh and it's making giant piles of money.

This is my take as well. There's nothing wrong with making a fun movie that isn't out to make a grand statement. It also shows you don't need to alter or compromise your ip for the sake of new audiences. Stay true to the source, make a good movie, and guess what? Those new eyes you were so wanting, just might show up anyway. Great word of mouth will do that.

My hot take on video games was that I didn't think Mario in particular would translate well to a theme park environment. I thought the cartoony art style would make everything feel plastic like the Simpsons land or Art of Animation, where I prefer the more realistic "lived in" aesthetic of Animal Kingdom and Frontierland. Obviously I was wrong.

There's nothing wrong with preferring the more realistic look. Personally I'm a fan of both. The key for me, is how well do you capture the look and feel of the source material. And as far as I can tell from what I've seen, Nintendo did it right. Super Nintendo land and the Mario movie could have gone really wrong. But it seems Nintendo wasn't willing to compromise.

 

[Ghost93]

So I guess the takeaway I'm getting from all of the Mario fans on this thread is that they want Disney movies to be more shallow.

I think Strange World was a total misfire, but I generally think that Disney and Pixar's trend of aiming for more depth and themes that appeal to both adults and children is good. I don't know how someone could look at something like Encanto or Soul and compare it to a movie like Mario — a film with almost no character depth whatsoever — and say that Mario is Superior.

I generally enjoyed the Mario movie for nostalgia as I grew up with the games, but on its own merits, it's not a great movie at all. It's pleasant. It will shut the kids up for two hours if parents need them to be distracted. But it's not making a billion dollars because it's an instant classic. It's making a billion dollars due to Mario being such a strong pre-existing IP. If Mario was an original movie, and there wasn't a gigantic pre-existing fanbase accumulating for 40 years, it wouldn't be making nearly as much money as it is. The success of the movie has little to do with the quality of the film itself and more to do with the popularity of Mario in general.

I'm just baffled by people on this thread acting like Illumination is now a master of animation. The people praising Illumination for making a lot of money off of IP's like the Minions franchise and Mario are the same hypocrites that whine about Disney being too IP-focused nowadays.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

So I guess the takeaway I'm getting from all of the Mario fans on this thread is that they want Disney movies to be more shallow.

I think Strange World was a total misfire, but I generally think that Disney and Pixar's trend of aiming for more depth and themes that appeal to both adults and children is good. I don't know how someone could look at something like Encanto or Soul and compare it to a movie like Mario — a film with almost no character depth whatsoever — and say that Mario is Superior.

I generally enjoyed the Mario movie for nostalgia as I grew up with the games, but on its own merits, it's not a great movie at all. It's pleasant. It will shut the kids up for two hours if parents need them to be distracted. But it's not making a billion dollars because it's an instant classic. It's making a billion dollars due to Mario being such a strong pre-existing IP. If Mario was an original movie, and there wasn't a gigantic pre-existing fanbase accumulating for 40 years, it wouldn't be making nearly as much money as it is. The success of the movie has little to do with the quality of the film itself and more to do with the popularity of Mario in general.

I'm just baffled by people on this thread acting like Illumination is now a master of animation. The people praising Illumination for making a lot of money off of IP's like the Minions franchise and Mario are the same hypocrites that whine about Disney being too IP-focused nowadays.

There's a lot of space in between "shallow" and "faux-intellectual social commentary from wannabe change agents who took three sociology seminars at Emerson and now consider themselves scholars of the human condition."

You don't get to claim "this movie is only succeeding because of the IP" as if THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY is somehow disadvantaged in that area. If Illumination can do it so easily with Nintendo's IP, why can't Disney do it with Disney's IP?

 

[erasure fan1]

So I guess the takeaway I'm getting from all of the Mario fans on this thread is that they want Disney movies to be more shallow.

Then you completely missed the takeaway then. Again, what they did was take an ip, and stay true to its source. Mario is a simple game with a simple story that people love. Illuminations and Nintendo didn't change the Mario formula to try and make som grand statement.

I'm just baffled by people on this thread acting like Illumination is now a master of animation. The people praising Illumination for making a lot of money off of IP's like the Minions franchise and Mario are the same hypocrites that whine about Disney being too IP-focused nowadays.

What does ip being forced into the parks, in places that make little thematic scene, have to do with illuminations being a master of animation? Disney parks are way to ip focused. Especially when it comes to placement and quality. That doesn't mean that everyone wants no ip. The reason people are praising illuminations is because they are giving fans what they want. Disney is too busy trying to be the smartest person in the room when they should be focused on telling a good story and staying true to the ip.

 

[Ghost93]

You don't get to claim "this movie is only succeeding because of the IP" as if THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY is somehow disadvantaged in that area. If Illumination can do it so easily with Nintendo's IP, why can't Disney do it with Disney's IP?

I can claim the movie was only succeeding due to the IP because most of Disney's recent animated movies have been original movies. Onward, Soul, Luca, Encanto, Raya and the Last Dragon, Turning Red and Strange World were all original. And with the exception of Strange World, I thought all of those were solid family movies.

The only recent Disney animated movie that was arguably an IP was Lightyear. Of course, that movie felt so disconnected from the original version of Buzz that it might as well have been an original movie. I would argue that Disney's takeaway from Lightyear flopping was that if you are going to use an IP, stay true to the general spirit of it. The Lightyear movie was overly somber and contradicted the lore established in the Toy Story movies. So much so that it didn't feel like a Lightyear movie at all. That's one area I'd give the Mario movie credit for — it gave the fans what they wanted in representing the character.

 

[flynnibus]

So I guess the takeaway I'm getting from all of the Mario fans on this thread is that they want Disney movies to be more shallow.

If that's your takeaway - maybe your part of the problem?

The film is successful because people are enjoying it. Enjoyment... kind of what they are making movies for.

I think Strange World was a total misfire, but I generally think that Disney and Pixar's trend of aiming for more depth and themes that appeal to both adults and children is good. I don't know how someone could look at something like Encanto or Soul and compare it to a movie like Mario — a film with almost no character depth whatsoever — and say that Mario is Superior.

Heres the thing ... who cares about 'superiority' and who is the judge?

What your take away should be is... moving content may not equate to COMMERCIAL SUCCESS. And stop trying to equate commercial success with 'superiority' or not. That in itself is a pretentious label.

I generally enjoyed the Mario movie for nostalgia as I grew up with the games, but on its own merits, it's not a great movie at all. It's pleasant. It will shut the kids up for two hours if parents need them to be distracted. But it's not making a billion dollars because it's an instant classic. It's making a billion dollars due to Mario being such a strong pre-existing IP. If Mario was an original movie, and there wasn't a gigantic pre-existing fanbase accumulating for 40 years, it wouldn't be making nearly as much money as it is. The success of the movie has little to do with the quality of the film itself and more to do with the popularity of Mario in general.

Your dismissal you've constructed fails to account for other films that succeed even without their artistic 'superiority'.

National Treasure had no strong pre-existing IP... yet it was a fun enough movie for audiences that it made over $300 million and spawned a whole series. Sometimes the formula just works even if the sub components are weak.

 

[celluloid]

So I guess the takeaway I'm getting from all of the Mario fans on this thread is that they want Disney movies to be more shallow.

I think Strange World was a total misfire, but I generally think that Disney and Pixar's trend of aiming for more depth and themes that appeal to both adults and children is good. I don't know how someone could look at something like Encanto or Soul and compare it to a movie like Mario — a film with almost no character depth whatsoever — and say that Mario is Superior.

I generally enjoyed the Mario movie for nostalgia as I grew up with the games, but on its own merits, it's not a great movie at all. It's pleasant. It will shut the kids up for two hours if parents need them to be distracted. But it's not making a billion dollars because it's an instant classic. It's making a billion dollars due to Mario being such a strong pre-existing IP. If Mario was an original movie, and there wasn't a gigantic pre-existing fanbase accumulating for 40 years, it wouldn't be making nearly as much money as it is. The success of the movie has little to do with the quality of the film itself and more to do with the popularity of Mario in general.

I'm just baffled by people on this thread acting like Illumination is now a master of animation. The people praising Illumination for making a lot of money off of IP's like the Minions franchise and Mario are the same hypocrites that whine about Disney being too IP-focused nowadays.

Oh it is not just Illumination. It is also Dreamworks under Universal still performing well, and far superior to Disney.

It is a mix of other studios catching up to the quality. Illumination loves remakes and Dreamworks loves franchising their characters to TV and reboot films now with the Shrek Characters, but they have been done and received and Disney is doing no better artistically with their big announcements being sequels and live action remakes of a movie less than ten years old.

Disney is more interested in remaking their animated classics to live action and odd business choices for the rest of their films that let Universal take the lead as family animated entertainment. The line is blurred and financially currently in favor of Universal for this generation of kids. We will see how long it lasts, but it is true as of now.

I won't be shocked if Trolls 3 or the new Illumination Migration movie makes a huge dent or outperforms Wish in the Thanksgiving to Christmas time market share. Particularly with lower ROI profit margin goals to hit as the budgets at Disney is another bad business move that tends to somehow happen.

It is a shame that they may have to have a Waking Sleeping Beauty level change if this keeps up. Star Wars having such saturation of film and tv can't be used more than currently and Marvel is going to struggle a bit with all the original phase people wrapping up and production cost of Disney Plus series so high.