Mario Bros. Animated Movie Coming from Illumination

[Sonicka]

1 hour ago, StaticMania said:

Hopefully they can get another studio next time...

Unlikely now unfortunately.

It took Nintendo this long to foster such a partnership with a single animation studio, and all the assets will have been created by their team ready for reappropriating in future projects.

It will be illumination all the way unless Nintendo decide to budget and properly form their own film animation studio from scratch later down the line.

That’s just the CGI movie scope though. It’s not to say they wouldn’t outsource for other things when it comes to producing cartoon or anime series for other IP’s, or a live action Zelda/Metroid etc…

But honestly I imagine it’s going to be far safer to keep it in house and stick with CGI with the same studio the whole way.
Crossovers can then occur should they want to go down that avenue. 

Chris Pratt joked in an interview about this being the start of the NCU - but genuinely it wouldn’t surprise me if we were to get to Smash Bros: The Movie in about 10 years time. 

[MetalSkulkBane]

2 hours ago, batson said:

I wish we lived in an alternative universe were a studio with actual quality on the agenda would have gotten the job to do this movie instead of Illumination. Just imagine what Pixar, Disney or Dreamworks could have done with this material.

Illumination is generally a very safe option, they are best at making 6/10 movies that make stupid amount of money (Siiigh, Secret Life of Pets.....).

Other options
- I guess they wanted to pick "weaker partner" to have more control over material. Dinsey/Pixar would have a lot to say.
- At least we didn't got WAG, I lost faith in those bastards after Scoob.
- Blue Sky is dead-ish (was kinda bad anyway), Laika and Aardman wouldn't fit.
- Sony Animation is..  hard to say. They used to be terrible, but their recent movies are pretty good, not just Spider-Verse. I loved "Mitchells vs. the Machines".

So I think I would pick Dreamworks as well, but their quality is very fluctuating. Sometimes they make Kung Fu Panda, Train Your Dragon or Last Wish, sometimes we get Turbo, Home or Spirit Untamed. Or something in between like Boss Baby and Croods.

36 minutes ago, Sonicka said:

Chris Pratt joked in an interview about this being the start of the NCU - but genuinely it wouldn’t surprise me if we were to get to Smash Bros: The Movie in about 10 years time. 

The real challenge will be Zelda and Metroid. If those two can be adapted in satisfying manner, then the rest will be formality.

[batson]

38 minutes ago, MetalSkulkBane said:

Illumination is generally a very safe option, they are best at making 6/10 movies that make stupid amount of money (Siiigh, Secret Life of Pets.....).

Other options
- I guess they wanted to pick "weaker partner" to have more control over material. Dinsey/Pixar would have a lot to say.
- At least we didn't got WAG, I lost faith in those bastards after Scoob.
- Blue Sky is dead-ish (was kinda bad anyway), Laika and Aardman wouldn't fit.
- Sony Animation is..  hard to say. They used to be terrible, but their recent movies are pretty good, not just Spider-Verse. I loved "Mitchells vs. the Machines".

So I think I would pick Dreamworks as well, but their quality is very fluctuating. Sometimes they make Kung Fu Panda, Train Your Dragon or Last Wish, sometimes we get Turbo, Home or Spirit Untamed. Or something in between like Boss Baby and Croods.

The real challenge will be Zelda and Metroid. If those two can be adapted in satisfying manner, then the rest will be formality.

I agree with pretty much all of your appraisals of the various animation studios. It's true, a lot of studios (Sony probably being the biggest example of this) are extremely risky from a business point of view, as you never really know what you're gonna get with them. Disney and Pixar meanwhile always make movies of a certain base quality (except maybe Strange Word; I haven't seen it but pretty much everyone says it's pretty bad so maybe that's true) but yeah, like you say, from Nintendo's point of view the Disney empire might be a difficult partner since Disney doesn't wouldn't really need Nintendo and their IP when they already own half of the know universe.

Dreamworks really would have been the best choice. True, sometimes they make dreck, but sometimes they make good stuff, unlike Illumination which only makes dreck (except maybe the very first Despicable Me movie, but, well, "even a blind chicken finds a grain every now and then").

[JezMM]

15 hours ago, Dr. Mechano said:

• She's rash; She attacks Mario on sight when she bumps into him for the first time and quickly apologizes for it - which is like an in-universe acknowledgment that she did something wrong.
• She underestimates Mario and tries to talk him out of fighting Donkey Kong, and is proven wrong when Mario wins.
• Her whole "stand off against Bowser with nothing but a halberd" plan falls apart instantly, as Bowser and his troops quickly overwhelm her.

(Full Movie Spoilers within)

Not that I think Peach is a mary-sue for a second but I do find these a little bit reaching.  Responding to those first and then my general thoughts on what IS flawed about Peach second:

Spoiler

The first is a natural response to someone flinging themselves at you out of nowhere, not exactly a flaw. In the second case, Mario partially only wins because Peach calls out to him about something he hadn't noticed, and I'd actually commend Peach for trying to protect Mario with what she knew of him so far.  And the third, I never saw that as a flawed plan at all, again I feel that's one of Peach's strongest moments - she has evacuated her kingdom and is now here for a final stand she has no chance of winning and she knows it - she's absolutely going down with the ship, and stands by her principles to the very end - or at least until it's no longer HER who is under threat, but a single loved one.

 

Personally I enjoyed Peach's character here for the most part, my biggest issue with her hyper-competence is that it means the fact that she just disappears for the movie's climax felt like a flaw to me instead.  And the one thing I would give to Mary-Sue arguers is that we're forced to just take it as granted that she's incredibly skilled... just because.  Like, she wandered into the Mushroom Kingdom as a baby and was raised by the pacifist Toads and yet somehow became this skilled fighter and acrobat.  The movie kind of sends mixed messages the whole way through - like at first it seemed like Peach's ability was just something all residents of the Mushroom Kingdom have because of how crazy their world is.  But then it's sort of suggested that the reason she was made Princess and is going off on her own to solve problems is because none of the Toads can do anything remotely dangerous for themselves - even though she has a full staff of castle guards who are all more than happy to evacuate without her, with the implication that Toad is the One Brave Toad amongst them all etc.

I feel like 1. They should have made it so the Toad Guards completely 100% fail to capture Mario and a point is made that they're basically all there on ceremony - Peach is just humouring the ones who decided they wanted to be the royal guard etc.

And 2. I feel like they should have done some sort of backstory that she was raised by the Kong tribe instead, and moved to the Mushroom Kingdom after falling for the Toads and wanting to protect them with her skills where no-one else would.  We'd have a little plothole as to why the Kongs need convincing to aid her - but they could've just spun some "sorry you know we must follow the Kong tradition, even for you Peach" sorta thing there.

 

Like, I disagree that she overshadows Mario, but she's definitely not well thought out and there were definitely a few moments where Mario did something and I was like "why isn't Peach also doing something?".

 

But also like, welcome to the club.  She's nothing compared to how underutilised Luigi and Bowser are who spend most of the movie just standing around in Bowser's castle it felt like.

 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Yeah, not gonna lie, Dreamworks and Disney/Pixar would’ve been a far better choice for a Mario movie.

I’m not really sure why they didn’t go with Disney given they seem to have had a relationship going with including Sora in Smash and their use of characters in Wreck it Ralph. You figure they’d have been the immediate choice.

[batson]

1 hour ago, CrownSlayer’s Shadow said:

Yeah, not gonna lie, Dreamworks and Disney/Pixar would’ve been a far better choice for a Mario movie.

I’m not really sure why they didn’t go with Disney given they seem to have had a relationship going with including Sora in Smash and their use of characters in Wreck it Ralph. You figure they’d have been the immediate choice.

Like MetalSkulkBane pointed out, it's probable that Illumination (or in actuallity its parent company NBCUniversal) was a better business partner for Nintendo since Disney is simply so powerful and has so many of their own ultra-profitable IP's that they could have made demands regarding the partnership in a way that Illumination probably couldn't. With Illumination I bet Nintendo could be all like "These are our terms. Take them or we'll take our IP's elsewhere". And if the supposed leaks are to be believed, Nintendo even sorta micromanaged the actual content of the movie in a way that maybe Disney would't have been willing to let them do.

And as much as I hate to say it since I'm a huge Nintendo fanboy, I think it's possible that Nintendo even realized that as bland as Illuminations movies are, they are always a safe bet to make money. Illuminations movies regularly absolutely stomps the efforts of Disney (including Pixar) at the box office. Nintendo might have realized that a company concerned only with making movies as mainstream and marketable as possible would realize that the key to a succesfull Mario movie in terms of profits is to first and foremost make it look and sound like the games as much as possible and throw in a billion easter eggs for the nerds (if the aforementioned leaks are real, it seems however that one aspect in terms of content where Nintendo and Illumination/NBCUniversal disagreed was regarding whether characterization that is utterly in line with the soure material or, err, "girl power" should take precedence in the case of the Mario-Peach dynamic. The end result is supposedly a compromise).

So basically, a company with not that much leverage against Nintendo and which also never lets creativity get in the way of pandering and profit might, as much as I hate to say it, have been the perfect choice to make a Mario movie that was guaranteed to basically function as a never ending Coin Block.

[Shiny Gems]

While I thought the movie was amazing, I do have this one little gripe with it. It is at the end of the movie in the final battle scene, so spoiler...

Spoiler

Why did the people cheer for Mario and Luigi when they supposedly saved Brooklyn after defeating Bowser rather than be confused with what happened? I mean, Bowser was probably not trying to take over Brooklyn, and the final fight was just taken there after they were warped to the city. Sorry, I just don't understand.

 

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

2 hours ago, CrownSlayer’s Shadow said:

Yeah, not gonna lie, Dreamworks and Disney/Pixar would’ve been a far better choice for a Mario movie.

I’m not really sure why they didn’t go with Disney given they seem to have had a relationship going with including Sora in Smash and their use of characters in Wreck it Ralph. You figure they’d have been the immediate choice.

It's likely because of the theme park partnership that Nintendo has going with Universal, who owns Illumination.

They likely wanted or were opted to stick in that lane.

[Shiny Gems]

2 minutes ago, Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon said:

It's likely because of the theme park partnership that Nintendo has going with Universal, who owns Illumination.

They likely wanted or were opted to stick in that lane.

I was thinking the exact same thing! Not to mention, Disney letting Sora in Smash can't be a good, or at least a big enough reason to have Disney make the movie. As for Wreck-It Ralph, from what I know, Mario himself was not in either movie of the series.

Say, on that note, who made the original live-action Mario movie? Just curious. We know Universal made the animated one that came out a few days ago, but I hope it does not hurt to ask about the other Mario movie and who made it.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

1 minute ago, ShinyGems said:

I was thinking the exact same thing! Not to mention, Disney letting Sora in Smash can't be a good, or at least a big enough reason to have Disney make the movie.

Sora getting into Smash likely happened some time after the Illumination deal was struck.

[Shiny Gems]

1 minute ago, Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon said:

Sora getting into Smash likely happened some time after the Illumination deal was struck.

Yeah, I forgot about that, but that too. I was just bringing up what another person brought up, if that is okay.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

3 minutes ago, ShinyGems said:

Say, on that note, who made the original live-action Mario movie? Just curious. We know Universal made the animated one that came out a few days ago, but I hope it does not hurt to ask about the other Mario movie and who made it.

Hollywood Pictures made that movie. And since they were owned by Disney, guess who technically owns the live-action movie.

[Shiny Gems]

1 hour ago, Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon said:

Hollywood Pictures made that movie. And since they were owned by Disney, guess who technically owns the live-action movie.

Ah, yeah. That is an interesting piece of a fact there. I still don't think that'd be enough for Disney to make an animated Mario movie, though.

 

[batson]

To say something positive about the movie; Bowser was great. Bowser's personality was pretty much exactly how I've always felt he's come across in the games (or at least since the games became advanced enough in terms of graphics to show facial animations). His selsfish yet comically "simpy" motivation of wanting to force Peach to marriage, his slight childishness, but also his cruelty and willingness to sacrafice lives to get what he wants, it all felt on point and true to his video game self. With Mario and Peach I never felt like they were the same people I know from the games (Mario completely lacked his childlike joy and energetic and intoxicating over-exuberance, those qualities having been replaced with the same boring everyman traits that Hollywood always forces on eccentric main characters from other media whenever they turn it into a movie, and Peach meanwhile didn't display her typical facial expressions of perhapes slightly naive niceness, instead always looking savy and assertive, and also lacked her soft-spoken, motherly qualities). But yeah, Bowser was great.

Luigi and DK I don't know what to think of (and I'm not sure Toad ever had a personality to begin with. The movie version of Toad honestly felt like it owed something to the old Mario cartoon show). I guess they were all alright, expect DK maybe being a bit too much of a jock bully.

[Kuzu]

I saw this movie on Wednesday, so I guess I'll talk about it, although I don't have much to say. 

Its basically about as much I expected from an Illumination Mario film; if you love Mario as a franchise, then this Movie is basically a love letter. Otherwise, there's really not much here, which makes me understand why its critic scores are so low. 

But since Mario is generally popular anyway, it was natural that people were gonna like it regardless of its quality. I was pretty charmed by it to be honest, even if there weren't any moments that I would say were amazing. 

 

I was surprised by how much I liked Mario and Luigi's dynamic though and it disappoints me they're separated for most of the movie. The climax kind of makes up for it, but yea. I also really appreciated Mario's interactions with the rest of the cast. Since Mario doesn't talk in the games, he really doesn't get to bounce off of people that well. Here though? We finally get conversations between him and Peach, and him and Donkey Kong. And Chris Pratt doesn't do a bad job emulating a Brooklyn accent. Makes for the lack of the iconic voice imo.

Shockingly, I think its Bowser who gets the short end here. When he's on screen, he's amazing but he doesn't actually interact with any of the cast until the 3rd act. I mean that's accurate to the games, but it means his and Mario's rivalry is kind of built off a flimsy love triangle that Bowser imagines between him, Mario and Peach. 

[Rabbitearsblog]

9 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

Shockingly, I think its Bowser who gets the short end here. When he's on screen, he's amazing but he doesn't actually interact with any of the cast until the 3rd act. I mean that's accurate to the games, but it means his and Mario's rivalry is kind of built off a flimsy love triangle that Bowser imagines between him, Mario and Peach. 

While Bowser is my favorite character in this film, I do think that his infatuation with Peach was a bit underdeveloped.  Like, how long has he known Peach and when did he developed a crush on her?

[Dr. Mechano]

I've replied a couple of times, but it occurs to me that I haven't posted a proper review of my overall thoughts, so here goes:

The Negatives:

• I feel like the pacing is a little rushed. Most scenes could have used just another minute or two to flesh things out just a little more.
• Some character threads don't seem to go anywhere? (Toad calling Mario his best friend which Mario is dismissive of, never followed up on again. DK saying he's more than a guy who just smashes stuff is interesting, but this also isn't really developed with anything?)
• Luigi underutilized until the end.

The Positives:

• Mario himself is awesome in this. He's honestly a super likable and compelling hero, who has to work hard to overcome each obstacle the movie throws at him. I genuinely found myself captivated by his story. Plus I always preferred the "Brooklyn plumber everyman" Mario to the "Mushroom Kingdom's hero ever since he was a baby" Mario.
• Bowser is perfect. He's pretty much the video game character perfectly realized for the big screen.
• Most of the comedy worked for me. Better than Illumination's usual fare.
• The emotional moments - while few - were effective. I really liked the relationship between Mario and Luigi in particular.
• Donkey Kong got a lot more focus than I expected, which was a pleasant surprise. I honestly would love to see a full DK movie now.
• That final battle was hype.

So yeah. I liked the Super Mario Bros. Movie. It exceeded my expectations and was really fun time throughout. I know it's definitely flawed as an objective piece of cinema, but as a fan of the Mario series, I was having too much fun to care. I really hope they make more of these, and with the success this movie's already seeing, I'm thinking they will.

[StaticMania]

"The Pacing..."

People were Not kidding when they said the movie was moving too fast, there's almost no real breathing room for each scene...

[Shiny Gems]

13 minutes ago, StaticMania said:

"The Pacing..."

People were Not kidding when they said the movie was moving too fast, there's almost no real breathing room for each scene...

Oh yeah, that! I noticed it was all going so fast, the movie, that is. Too fast as a matter of fact, I must say.

[Sega DogTagz]

One of the first things we learned about the Mario movie was that Nintendo packed the creative team with insiders to ensure their vision remained in-house for this out-of-house project.

That decision bleeds through this movie every which way. While its plain to see the respect for the source material, and the movie does its best to leverage as many game mechanics and easter eggs as it possibly can, it forgot that this needed to be a movie first and more or less chucks the fundamentals of making a good or decent film right on the back-burner. Its like they worked backwards. Make everything 1 to 1 to the games and them thread the whole thing together with dental floss.

There is a fine line between remaining loyal to the IP and allowing creatives who specialize in their field to do what they are good at. While you could argue the chops of the Illumination team, its very clear from the pacing, the paper thin plot, the lack of interest in developing characters in a meaningful way - this just doesn't aim to be a good movie. It sacrifices that on the adaption mantle. They didn't set out to tell a story, or put their own touches on a classic, they just kinda slingshot Mario's face on the big screen and called it a day.

 

It doesn't have to be this way. You can have a little from column A and a little from column B and end up somewhere solid. Video game movies were just getting put on a path toward respectability and here is the biggest, most well known IP in the industry just seeming to choose to ground pound the entire genre back to square 1. C'mon man.

 

What further irritates me is that if this movie does exceedingly well, copycats will flock to this formula - ensuring more bad video game movies coming down the pipe. The goal of these films should be higher than controller flavored vomit looking to cash in on familiar faces rather than making something that is actually.... good.

[StaticMania]

The pacing honestly makes the use of licensed songs even worse because there's pretty much no build up to even those...

7 minutes ago, Sega DogTagz said:

...most well known IP in the industry just seeming to choose to ground pound the entire genre back to square 1. C'mon man

This isn't back to square one, that seems like a really overblown reaction.

It's like 3/4 of a step backwards, but there's still room for improvement.

8 minutes ago, Sega DogTagz said:

...or put their own touches on a classic, they just kinda slingshot Mario's face on the big screen and called it a day.

Unless you think the few things original to this movie aren't them putting their own touches on an established IP, there's certainly "stuff" here, it's just not enough to make a truly satisfying narrative. They almost had something there.

[Sega DogTagz]

7 minutes ago, StaticMania said:

The pacing honestly makes the use of licensed songs even worse because there's pretty much no build up to even those...

This isn't back to square one, that seems like a really overblown reaction.

It's like 3/4 of a step backwards, but there's still room for improvement.

 

I don't feel like its overblown. This movie is going to do well enough to spawn copycats. And if we get more videogame movies that are more concerned with being faithful adaptions - opposed to being not even good, but at least solid films, then we really are all the way back to square 1.

 

IPs that aren't as beloved are gonna follow that exact same gameplan and we'll be back to disasters rolling out every time a videogame movie hits the market.

 

7 minutes ago, StaticMania said:

Unless you think the few things original to this movie aren't them putting their own touches on an established IP, there's certainly "stuff" here, it's just not enough to make a truly satisfying narrative. They almost had something there.

 

There is nothing in this film that sticks out to me as an innovative, new or outstanding concept that will have a lasting impact on the franchise. I don't see any fingerprints that 5 or 10 years from now, we are gonna look back and see how the movie impacted the franchise. Illumination didn't try to do anything but follow the basic Mario script.

[StaticMania]

3 minutes ago, Sega DogTagz said:

There is nothing in this film that sticks out to me as an innovative, new or outstanding concept that will have a lasting impact on the franchise. I don't see any fingerprints that 5 or 10 years from now, we are gonna look back and see how the movie impacted the franchise. Illumination didn't try to do anything but follow the basic Mario script.

This isn't even really what I was talking about...

They did the exact type of story they should've done, but they didn't do enough to make it fully fleshed out and satisfying narratively.

It barely has a theme or character development and nothing they did in the movie would've prevented either of those things from happening while still being a fun romp. It just needed more time or less of...something else.

[Dr. Mechano]

I dunno, if copycats do come out of this, then a true-to-the-games animated Sonic movie sounds like a great time to me. And I say that as someone who thinks the current live-action series is still pretty good.

 

[Sega DogTagz]

57 minutes ago, Dr. Mechano said:

I dunno, if copycats do come out of this, then a true-to-the-games animated Sonic movie sounds like a great time to me. And I say that as someone who thinks the current live-action series is still pretty good.

Full honesty. I'd love it too. Give me a Sonic movie with the dedication and production value in the vein of the Mario movie and I'll go see it in theaters 3 times.

But being a great time for dedicated fans and a good movie are 2 very different things. And just because it accomplishes the first for video game fans, we shouldn't let our tinted glasses blind us to what ultimately amounts to a bad product. We don't need to pretend like this is an acceptable standard, because it isn't. I might get my $15.99 worth of enjoyment out of it - but said enjoyment comes out of everything that's not inherent to the movie culture itself. If you just want to see cheep cheeps, and floating bricks, go play the games. Movies are supposed to tell an enthralling story and if you fail at that, your missing the point of the medium. If you want to make a Mario movie, then do that. Instead we get 90 mins of spot-the-reference and cardboard cutouts of iconic characters which just whiffed on their opportunity to shine on the big screen like we know they can.

 

I want a movie with characters that I can invest in, a plot that feels like it has weight and core theme that meshes with the IP. I'm not asking for shakespeare. I'm not asking for the moon. We can find a better middle ground than what the Mario movie gave us (which IMO was no middle ground at all).