I didn't think Super Mario Bros (1993) was that bad.

Anybody seen Richie?

01-29-25

According to the omniscient Wikipedia, it is regarded as one of the worst movies of the 90s. I, admittedly, totally don't get why. I understand that the movie is totally not canon, and I understand that aside from some characters, it very much doesn't resemble Mario at all. That being said, it's a totally okay flick. Granted, I saw it two years ago. I was entertained, and I thought the set design was nice. What am I missing here?

__________________
Sent via Blackberry

Last edited by LostInSauce; 01-29-25 at 02:57 PM. Reason: Wanted to add something.

FilmBuff

Pass the popcorn!

01-29-25

I think it's a clear example of studio interference getting in the way of what the filmmakers originally wanted to do (and it shows).

According to Wikipedia,

Several weeks before shooting was to begin, Disney purchased the distribution rights to the film and demanded significant rewrites. Morton said the final result was a script that was not at all like the script that he, Jankel, and the cast had signed on to film, and that the tone of the new script was not at all compatible with the sets, which had already been built. Solomon recalled that he "felt like [his draft of the screenplay] was at least coherent," but upon visiting the set, [Morton] had cut it up with a bunch of other stuff he liked from other drafts and a bunch of new stuff. [�] There was no through line." Leguizamo said, "It's eight-year-olds who play the game and that's where the movie needed to be aimed. [...] But [the directors] kept trying to insert new material. They shot scenes with strippers and with other sexually-explicit content, which all got edited out anyway." Richard Edson claimed that he and co-star Fisher Stevens were permitted to contribute their own dialogue at the writers� approval: "If we could improve the script, they were more than happy. So we did our own [dialogue] and they loved it [�] that made it a lot more fun for us."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Bros._(film)

Yoda

Administrator

01-29-25

I think you've probably explained it already: it's kinda just a bad movie (IMO), but it seems a lot worse because, as an adaptation, it's kind of inexplicable. If you're gonna make something that doesn't feel at all like the thing it's adapting, it better be really good. If you depart from the tone of the source to make something pretty bad anyway, it's kind of a bigger flub.

LostInSauce

Anybody seen Richie?

01-29-25

Yeah, I guess if I was a big Mario fan, I'd probably hate it too.

Holden Pike

One Ornery Sumbitch

01-29-25

Originally Posted by THREAD TITLE

I didn't think Super Mario Bros (1993) was that bad.

It absolutely is that bad. Empirically.

You are allowed to like and even love the damn thing, if you wish. But objectively it is a poorly made piece of entertainment.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

markdc

Registered User

01-30-25

I�ve never seen SMB, but my experience with video game adaptations is that they�re generally awful. Years ago, I saw Streetfighter and thought it was hideous. (And keep in mind that I was just a kid, so my cinematic tastes weren�t exactly refined.) As an adult, I saw Prince of Persia, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, and Warcraft and thought all of them were crappy. And I�ve heard nothing but bad things about other VG adaptations like Super Mario Bros. and Mortal Kombat. So I think I�ll pass on SMB and use my dollars to watch something else.

Mark

stillmellow

Basic Non-B

01-30-25

I once saw a fan-made extended cut, using rough footage of deleted scenes, and it was a lot better. Certainly a lot easier to understand. They had cut out a lot of important connecting scenes.

Also, there were a lot of great additional Dennis Hopper scenes, who was the best part of the movie in any case

LostInSauce

Anybody seen Richie?

02-01-25

Originally Posted by Holden Pike

It absolutely is that bad. Empirically.

You are allowed to like and even love the damn thing, if you wish. But objectively it is a poorly made piece of entertainment.

I was entertained. It can't possibly be that bad because it succeeded in its primary purpose.

LostInSauce

Anybody seen Richie?

02-01-25

Originally Posted by stillmellow

Do you have a link to this fan cut anywhere?

stillmellow

Basic Non-B

02-01-25

Originally Posted by LostInSauce

Do you have a link to this fan cut anywhere?

https://archive.org/details/super-ma...ed+DVD+1-1.mp4

Corax

Registered User

02-01-25

Originally Posted by LostInSauce

I was entertained. It can't possibly be that bad because it succeeded in its primary purpose.

It's purpose was to entertain you, personally? By Jove, the solipsists were right, after all.
In that case, we might have an airtight case to establish that any film wasn't all that bad. "Well, it can't be that bad, because LostInSause liked the sauce."

Allaby

Registered User

02-01-25

I saw it when I was a kid and liked it. I don't know what I would think if I watched it now.

LostInSauce

Anybody seen Richie?

02-02-25

Originally Posted by Corax

It's to entertain, generally. If a movie fails to do that...I mean...it's setting sail to fail.

Ryguy

Registered User

4 days ago

I dare not watch it.

Hotel Security