I don't look at things as good/bad. I look at things as "I enjoyed this"/"I didn't enjoy this". I enjoyed Mario. Whether it wins an Oscar or not is meaningless to me.
Because it was a fine competent film with a familiar franchise.
Sure people will b***h and whine and moan about it being Illumination slop but it has a definitive character arc for Mario, an easy enough plot to follow, and characters that are likable enough to root for. Also helps Jack Black was fun as Bowser. It's no where near as bad as morons like to seethe over and ut has enough nods and careful nintendo references to at least appear genuine in its sincerity. But yeah keep seething OP.
>he has no agency >literally trying to save his brother
This is why I'm certain half the people shitting on this movie didn't even see it. Granted I also feel that about everyone blindly loving it too.
I liked it. It focused mostly on older NES/SNES stuff. It had the Mario Super Show theme. No modern crap like Rosalia or Waluigi or Bowser Jr. The soundtrack was ace. It's all I wanted from a Mario movie.
People like just Mario. the people who grew up with even Mario are like 30+ and older, they bring their own kids to watch a movie that has that thing they liked as a kid. It's not that complicated, just that the soil that would sprout that harvest has been tended to for like decades to make it ready for that moment.
Let me put it this way, Star Wars was ~22 years old when The Phantom Menace came out. Anon alive back then remember how big a deal that was regardless of how you feel about the prequel. Let's be conservative and consider SMB1 to be the start of Mario instead of Donkey Kong and it would like ~38 years old. Now keep in mind that Mario has also been very "conservative" with its main cast, the people who played back in the NES Days know Mario,Luigi, Peach, Toad and Bowser and the standard enemies and that is the way it generally stays even as other characters come and go. Mario is safe and recognizable and the movie was treated as a big "event", so people got interested and curious.
TL;DR: Mario is old as frick and had a long time to entice a potential audience including actual parents who grew up with the character themselves.
t. Nintendogay who haven't seen the movie and have no plan to, but might one day if it falls onto my path. But i actually liked the Live Action one in a "unintentionally funny" kind of way and apparently it had a nightmare level management.
im disappointed with most of you. youre being hit with a trick question. youre answering it as if the premise of the question is true. you need to stop being simpletons and learn to think for yourselves for your own good
the trick to this question is that the mario movie was actually really good and not at all a piece of shit like the premise of the question lead you to believe
you may be young and impressionable which means youre not supposed to be on this website. but otherwise im surprised people who cant think for themselves are actually allowed to vote. i wonder if thats why america is in the state its in right now
if you enjoy them then theyre not shit to you. it just sounds like youre accepting general consensus instead of owning up to your own tastes. let me tell you a secret: theres no such thing as general consensus. its a lie that was invented to keep critics in business
Nah, they're shit. I like crass commercialism and 80s kid nostalgia with little redeeming value and foul, offensive stuff. If anything, people should be more accepting of the fact that it's perfectly okay to like awful things.
I mean, being good alone does not mean making money, Good shit can go over budget and flop plenty, only to get recognition AFTER the fact. Therefore OPs subjective statement doesn't really change the second more important money of the statement which is "how did it make money", which would be "Because it got a big audience and postive recognition on release", and then it is about "Why did it get a big audience?", which is where shit like marketing and the like comes.
>movie about a mascot bigger than Mickey Mouse >didn't try to make it gritty realistic live action subversion slop for Netflix normieBlack folk and instead just made it Mario and Peach hopping around to bing bing wahoo music as they make their way to Bowser's castle just like in the games
Why are people so surprised about this selling well?
It was all right.
+Mario Super Show references
+Princess was similar to her portrayal in Nintendo Power comics
+Mario had a normal fricking voice and doesn't sound like he has autism
+lots of game references
+characters were not too cutesy-poo like in the games and acted appropriately snarky, but not annoyingly so
+didn't have any subversion garbage or surprise villains. No attempts to shoehorn politics. Just a simple, straight-forward adventure story for kids, like it should be
-not enough weegie
-no Lakitu
-Cat Mario sucks.
-Diddy and Dixie's eyes looked ugly
-No reference to Nintendo Cereal System
-Shyguys didn't have their quirky Valiant Comics personality, but on the plus side their presence was welcome
The same reason Barbie did. Nostalgia and children.
Nintoddlers are mentally ill
It's a nice movie for children.
carried by fanservice
Nostalgia sells. It's why everything is remakes and sequels and adaptions of 20 year old properties now.
It's not shit, it's a better movie then Spiderverse 2 it's going to win a Oscar.
Good question, OP. History shows that good movies gross really well and bad movies always do poorly. Mario somehow managed to be the only anomaly.
Mario is a good movie, good enough to win a Oscar.
I don't look at things as good/bad. I look at things as "I enjoyed this"/"I didn't enjoy this". I enjoyed Mario. Whether it wins an Oscar or not is meaningless to me.
How is it shit tho
TOTAL DISNEY DEATH
Because it was a fine competent film with a familiar franchise.
Sure people will b***h and whine and moan about it being Illumination slop but it has a definitive character arc for Mario, an easy enough plot to follow, and characters that are likable enough to root for. Also helps Jack Black was fun as Bowser. It's no where near as bad as morons like to seethe over and ut has enough nods and careful nintendo references to at least appear genuine in its sincerity. But yeah keep seething OP.
>definitive character arc for Mario
it really doesn't tho. he has no agency either
>he has no agency
>literally trying to save his brother
This is why I'm certain half the people shitting on this movie didn't even see it. Granted I also feel that about everyone blindly loving it too.
Compared to the other recent animated offerings? It's practically a masterpiece.
I liked it. It focused mostly on older NES/SNES stuff. It had the Mario Super Show theme. No modern crap like Rosalia or Waluigi or Bowser Jr. The soundtrack was ace. It's all I wanted from a Mario movie.
People like just Mario. the people who grew up with even Mario are like 30+ and older, they bring their own kids to watch a movie that has that thing they liked as a kid. It's not that complicated, just that the soil that would sprout that harvest has been tended to for like decades to make it ready for that moment.
Let me put it this way, Star Wars was ~22 years old when The Phantom Menace came out. Anon alive back then remember how big a deal that was regardless of how you feel about the prequel. Let's be conservative and consider SMB1 to be the start of Mario instead of Donkey Kong and it would like ~38 years old. Now keep in mind that Mario has also been very "conservative" with its main cast, the people who played back in the NES Days know Mario,Luigi, Peach, Toad and Bowser and the standard enemies and that is the way it generally stays even as other characters come and go. Mario is safe and recognizable and the movie was treated as a big "event", so people got interested and curious.
TL;DR: Mario is old as frick and had a long time to entice a potential audience including actual parents who grew up with the character themselves.
t. Nintendogay who haven't seen the movie and have no plan to, but might one day if it falls onto my path. But i actually liked the Live Action one in a "unintentionally funny" kind of way and apparently it had a nightmare level management.
im disappointed with most of you. youre being hit with a trick question. youre answering it as if the premise of the question is true. you need to stop being simpletons and learn to think for yourselves for your own good
the trick to this question is that the mario movie was actually really good and not at all a piece of shit like the premise of the question lead you to believe
you may be young and impressionable which means youre not supposed to be on this website. but otherwise im surprised people who cant think for themselves are actually allowed to vote. i wonder if thats why america is in the state its in right now
What if the movie was a piece of shit and I enjoyed the frick out of it anyway?
one doesnt typically enjoy a piece of shit. if you enjoyed the mario movie why do you think its a piece of shit
He has scat fetish obviously, it is not that complicated anon, geez.
>one doesnt typically enjoy a piece of shit
Everything I enjoy is terrible. Most of what I watch are Cannon films movies, Troma crap, old slashers, and toyetic 80s cartoons.
if you enjoy them then theyre not shit to you. it just sounds like youre accepting general consensus instead of owning up to your own tastes. let me tell you a secret: theres no such thing as general consensus. its a lie that was invented to keep critics in business
Nah, they're shit. I like crass commercialism and 80s kid nostalgia with little redeeming value and foul, offensive stuff. If anything, people should be more accepting of the fact that it's perfectly okay to like awful things.
I mean, being good alone does not mean making money, Good shit can go over budget and flop plenty, only to get recognition AFTER the fact. Therefore OPs subjective statement doesn't really change the second more important money of the statement which is "how did it make money", which would be "Because it got a big audience and postive recognition on release", and then it is about "Why did it get a big audience?", which is where shit like marketing and the like comes.
It's what everyone asked, a direct adaptation of the games. For better or worse, it's faithful to the source material, at least for the most part.
>movie about a mascot bigger than Mickey Mouse
>didn't try to make it gritty realistic live action subversion slop for Netflix normieBlack folk and instead just made it Mario and Peach hopping around to bing bing wahoo music as they make their way to Bowser's castle just like in the games
Why are people so surprised about this selling well?
It was all right.
+Mario Super Show references
+Princess was similar to her portrayal in Nintendo Power comics
+Mario had a normal fricking voice and doesn't sound like he has autism
+lots of game references
+characters were not too cutesy-poo like in the games and acted appropriately snarky, but not annoyingly so
+didn't have any subversion garbage or surprise villains. No attempts to shoehorn politics. Just a simple, straight-forward adventure story for kids, like it should be
-not enough weegie
-no Lakitu
-Cat Mario sucks.
-Diddy and Dixie's eyes looked ugly
-No reference to Nintendo Cereal System
-Shyguys didn't have their quirky Valiant Comics personality, but on the plus side their presence was welcome
Overall - S'alright/10