I don’t care what anyone says, the worldbuilding that was done for the 1990s Super Mario Bros. movie was awesome and if the movie had lived up to it, it would have been great.
Remember that when the movie was made, Mario was a plumber that jumped on mushrooms and turtles to save a princess and he had a brother named Luigi that did the same thing. That was pretty much the entire storyline they had to work with.
Video game movies in the 90s were always shit.
We had studios seeing green with franchises that had significant canon (remember, SMB, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat (although that was a decent movie but the soundtrack did a lot of work there) all had significant backstory in their manuals.
Super Mario Brothers would’ve been a fun movie if they didn’t try to tie it in with the game. It wasn’t canonical at all, and 8-year-old JasonDJ was quick to realize it.
Super Mario Brothers would’ve been a fun movie if they didn’t try to tie it in with the game.
That is very likely, although I still think it would have had big problems. John Leguizamo isn’t exactly a terrific actor. Funny guy, not a great actor.
But the worldbuilding they put into it was pretty damn impressive and they had some great ideas. The whole parallel world where dinosaurs didn’t die out but evolved into what look like humans but aren’t quite idea was pretty cool. Or at least I thought so.
John Leguizamo isn’t exactly a terrific actor
Luigi isn’t exactly a deep charter to act out. You don’t need a Shakespearian actor for a character whose main line is “whaaaaaaaa!”
Ayeee Leguizamo is technically a Shakespearean actor lol. That gun was pretty lit in the adaptation.
Haha true and also true!
Oh, I agree with you there.
I’m just saying there was more to work with. Super Mario World was out by 1993 and all the previous SMB games were available with all their manual content. Mario had been a plumber, a doctor, a race-car driver, an athlete, a construction worker, a teacher, a painter, and a dinosaur tamer by that point.
Okay, fair enough. I wasn’t very steeped in Nintendo lore at the time, I just played the games. I’m guessing that was the norm.
The movie was definitely a big mess. Most of the people involved were very talented, but it suffered from severe executive meddling. What interests me most about it is that it was directed by Annabel Jankel and Rocky Morton, who brought the same cyberpunk aesthetic to the film as they brought to Max Headroom. It was what got them brought in to direct the film in the first place. If you haven’t seen Max Headroom, both the British and U.S. versions (which Morton and Jankel both were responsible for) are really good.
Anyway, the script they wanted to direct was more adult and not intended for kids and definitely would not have followed what Nintendo had in mind for Mario et al, but that script apparently was what convinced Bob Hoskins and Fiona Shaw to do the movie. I’d love to have read it. Then the producers brought in Ed Solomon to do a two-week rewrite and give it a lighter tone. Solomon is a good writer. He co-wrote the Bill and Ted movies amongst others. But two weeks was not enough time and they had the wrong directors in place to do a movie with a lighter tone.
Would Nintendo fans have enjoyed the movie they wanted to make? Probably not. But I think it also might have been a good movie as opposed to the end result.
You can read about the mess in this article- https://www.theguardian.com/games/2018/mar/22/super-mario-bros-movie-killing-fields-chariots-fire-video-game
I always felt like Flowers For Algernon was such a compelling book and the only movie i know of is one of the worst things I’ve ever seen. You would think it was a comedy based on that movie.
Basically that’s what they did with Ocean’s 11. The original Frank Sinatra version was shit. But it was a good idea, a crew of super cool dudes get together to rob a casino.
They remade it and it was very successful.
The Thing has a similar origin.
But it’s rare things like that happen because Hollywood execs usually need an existing property with good numbers to greenlight a movie.
For a second I thought you were trying to say that The Thing (2011) is a better remake of The Thing (1982), but then I remembered that 1951 version exists.
Original thing was pretty good.
The one from the 50’s, good as it was for the time, is now overshadowed in the popular consciousness by Carpenter’s. Ironically, it seems like the former did quite well at the box office whereas the latter bombed and only over time has it grown in popularity.
I would consider Carpenter’s to be a sequel of sorts. It takes up after another crew has been already destroyed by The Thing. It gels well with the idea that the 50s movie is about post WWII paranoia (kill everything that looks different on sight). While Carpenter’s, while being a bit closer to the source material, is about cold war paranoia. Everything, even those who you trust the most, could be a shapeshifting monster. The movie even ends on a cold quiet unresolved and presumably eternal face-off.
Carpenter’s is closer to the original short story, too.
Funn enough Ocean’s X is also the opposite example since they didn’t stop just making more of the same.
Battlestar Galactica is a great example of something mediocre that was made great by a remake, but also something that might be greatly improved by another remake because the second half was so flawed.
Whoever said, lets do whip zooms and shaky cams with tribalesque war drums for space combat was a genius. First two seasons of the show the feeling of dread was so good.
So good. So damn good.
Then they had a weird second half, an ending that explained nothing and left so many plots open and closed with a movie that was called “the plan” that revealed the cylons had anything but. I’m still mad just thinking about it.
I would love a proper remake of Eragon. That movie felt so rushed, like they just chopped the meat out of the story and gave us the bloody mush instead of the whole thing.
They are doing a series right now.
They are?? How did I not know about this?
Ghost in the Shell was an unnecessary remake of a fantastic original animation that was improved by the series that followed it. There was never a need for a live action version.
tbh I would have loved a well done live action version of GITS. With a Japanese cast, international subtitles, and a new offshoot plot that expands upon the original film. Bring in a remastered version of the original animation’s impeccable soundtrack. I absolutely think it’s possible, but it’s far outside the realm of “make cheap movie make big money” that the majority of film studios operate on today
Ghost in the shell was decent. They paid incredible attention to the art direction and casting ranged from perfect to acceptable. I can’t remember a single scene but their rendering of 90s retrofuturism sincerely blew me away. Maybe modern cinema has tainted me but it really wasn’t terrible.
It could have been an acceptably decent movie if it wasn’t trying to be part of the GitS franchise. As a GitS fan I hated it, but I wonder if it could have been more fun to watch if I was unfamiliar with the series. I remember thinking the same with a lot of movies based on books I hadn’t read like Percy Jackson, the movie became a lot worse after reading the source material.
deleted by creator
Absolutely, there’s a lot of stories that would have been better received as their own original IPs. Unfortunately, it’s a lot safer to make a sequel so you can count on sales from the pre-established fanbase. Another good example I always go to is the Thief video games, where I got my username. The reboot dramatically changed all the mechanics and ditched a lot of what made the first games so engaging, very little aside from a few proper nouns has any resemblance to the original. It could have been a decent stealth game if it sold itself on its own merits(it certainly wasn’t terrible) but as a Thief game, it justifiably got fans upset.
I loved that movie! I thought they did an excellent job, and it gave us more cyberpunk content, which there is not nearly enough of.
Well, there’s Dredd.
I don’t consider it a remake. The story is totally different.
It’s not a remake of the Stallone movie, it’s a second attempt at making a movie based on the comics, which is exactly what OP is talking about.
Dredd was fucking awesome and didn’t get the justice it deserved.
I’m not a comic book guy by any means but that movie is great.
Equally so is Constantine. (And the TV show!)
Either of them have reached the levels of the worst, most generic Marvel movie.
The original Dredd was better. It’s meant to satire cops, not just be an uncritical action flick about a badass cop. If you strip Judge Dredd of its silliness and satire you’re left with dust colored post apoc action, and Fury Road did a better job of that.
I’ll take your word on the intentions of the original Dredd, but the point still stands, Dredd was good. Not as good as fury road good, but good is all that matters. I’d like to see more Dredd with that kind of action, even if it’s not true to soruce material.
Can we have good action flicks that aren’t at the expense of good stories? It seems like the only reason to use the IP at that point is for cynically bankable nostalgia.
Nostalgia for what, though? It was a ‘duo go into a tower and kill everyone’ movie that happened to be called Dredd. I liked it for what it was and I didn’t go in with any nostalgia. I feel your anxiety, but, I wonder if action movies by their nature can’t really be deep meditations on the human condition. What story can be told at the muzzle of a gun or the end of a fist that hasn’t already been told?
I kind of feel like action movies are at their best when they operate in a space that is far away from the frontal cortex, invite us to a more libidinal place. Even ‘thinker’ action movies like The Matrix, kind of strike me as philosophically shallow harangues interspersed with cool fights.
I donno, maybe I’m wrong, or not steeped enough in the genre, or just have normie preferences. Out of curiosity, what action movies have a good story & are worth checking out, in your opinion?
If I call a movie Animaniacs and it happens to be a heartfelt tear-jerker about a 1600s Russian peasant, would you say the same thing? Nevertheless, the original Dredd was a fun action film in its own right, you can definitely do both. I don’t know what we’re supposed to gain by expecting less.
To answer your question (did I miss that or was it edited in?) I’d recommend Fury Road straight away if you’ve not seen it, then going back for Ip Man, Guns Akimbo, Kung Fu Hustle, Psycho Goreman, Black Magic M-66, and of course the original action film, Seven Samurai. Not all pure “action” flicks, but all are examples of action packed cinema that don’t leave any storytelling by the wayside.
Kurosawa is a good counterpoint for sure. Haven’t seen Guns Akimbo, Psycho Goreman, or Black Magic M-66. I’ll keep my eye out for those. Thanks!
Disney…if you’re listening…The Black Hole… If you please
Note: Without ruining the story in the process
You mean take actual risks???
No, none of that for my profit margin
But the remake doesnt make much money tho
The superhero movies would say otherwise.
They make the studios a lot of money with a very similar formula.
I was talking about disney remakes. Anyway what are the super hero remakes ?
I know the Disney remakes are considered a flop by Disney standards but I thought they still pulled in a big chunk of change?
All that Disney live action remake bullshit somehow makes money otherwise they would have stopped.
That said, I’m eagerly awaiting Netflix’s take on ATLA
Movies are being made to mitigate risk. Take a polar thing and just do that again, that’ll suck people in right???
God forbid they do something new and interesting with the material, that can’t possibly work.
The only time I can think of where a remake ended up working out was with the recent planet of the apes movies. Where, you know, they took the premise and did something new and interesting with it. But even THEN, there was a completely different remake that failed to innovate outside of the last few minutes and those were confusing are best.
Virtually every single bad adaptation can be directly traced back to studio interference.
Movies like LoTR only happened because the studios thought it would be a colossal flop, and so left the directors and producers alone.
If you want great movies, the studios need to leave the producers and directors the hell alone.
Also, low bugets makes the directors extra creative. They need to make the most of what they have. In my opinion, a well written plot trumps special effects every time.
LotR also is going to stand out from now on, because at the time it was made, CGI was ok, and getting to be good, but they didn’t trust it for crowds yet. SW Ep. 1 came out at about the same time, and the CGI crowds don’t hold up. LotR had PJ directing and he wanted to use as many real people and real sets as he could, so that when they had to use CGI it wouldn’t be noticable. You can see the difference looking at The Hobbit movies.
Writing is the only thing that matters. I point to “Everything Everywhere All at Once” and “Amsterdam”. The latter of which had 4x the budget.
Because a bad effect, actor, or shot can only ruin a moment. A bad script ruins the story.
I quite enjoyed ansterdam. It’s not better than everything everywhere but it’s still a good film
I kinda disagree with the writing being the ultimate decider on what makes a good story) movie. Directing and editing matters just as much, if not more so. Those two brings to life what is written on the page because sometimes it’s hard to imagine what is described on the page.
Good writing, directing and editing are all necessary, and are not on their own sufficient.
Why not just read a book, then?
Counterpoint: Game of Thrones. The studio would have been happy to give them a few more seasons to develop a better ending. It’s the creators who gave up and phoned in the ending we got.
The only problem is that GoT didn’t have any more source material, as Martin didn’t finish the story (think he still hasn’t?).
The creators were in constant touch with GRRM. They knew where he intends to go. The ending we got could be done better if things were fleshed out over a longer period of time.
You’re assuming GRRM knows where he intends to go. Or more importantly, how he intends to get there.
George RR Martin is the creator of game of thrones, not the show runners.
Oh wait, the original example was lotr, which also was based on books lol. Nevermind me, carry on.
LOTR was based on a trilogy that was finished looking before the movies were made. Starting a TV show and hoping the source material would be finished in time for the end was a, um, bold move.
Even ignoring that, Martin was helping them continue it without a book to base the story on and was pushing for 10 sessions, the show creators wanted to move on and start working on another project instead and we got what we got…
And they promptly lost said projects.
George RR Martin was a consultant on seasons that had not yet been written as books. He told the writers where he wanted the story in the books to go, and where to take the story in the show. I doubt it’s true, but a lot of fans were speculating that he made the end deliberately bad (Arya kills the Night King, Denarys goes crazy, Cersei and Kingslayer reunite to be crushed by the collapsing Red Keep, Bran becomes king) because he wanted the show to be worse than his next two books. @
My head Canon is that that was the actual ending he planned and because it flopped so hard the last books will never happen
No man, that specific ending can be made to work. But you need good writers, several more seasons and good taste to do that. Martin gave DandD a finish line, but they had to figure the trail and make the run. They just suck at that so bad that it almost killed their entire careers, got them dropped from the job they had lined up and poisoned everything they touched for 5 years. Netflix just gave them the “3 body problem” adaptation. I’m sure it will be good because the thing is already written, and they are usually good at coloring between the lines. Just not good at coming up with new original or creative stuff.
He said in interviews that he was pushing for 10 seasons, I don’t think he intentionally fucked up, I think he did what he could with two showrunners that were tired of doing their job and couldn’t accept that someone else would take the reins.
For all the bad you hear about studios though, there are plenty of stories of movies that were saved by the studio because the director was off the rails and had no idea what to do. Here’s a list with a couple:
https://collider.com/10-movies-that-were-improved-by-studio-interference/#easy-rider-1969
Most of these are a stretch. They didn’t like psycho so they underfunded it. Hitchcock finances the movie, takes a pay cut along with the actors. Somehow this is positive interference…
It’s morbin’ time
I’d like that
The dark tower
eragon
the hobbit
fantastic 4
I didn’t mind the dark tower movie before knowing nothing about the book series. I’m on Wizard and Glass now though and in hindsight… That movie was absolute trash and pretty offensive to the fanbase.
I decided a few years ago to simply stop watching anything that was a remake, reboot, update or ‘franchise’. Too many of them have used nostalgia and familiarity to compensate for shortcomings in storytelling. Even more cynically, leveraging intellectual property is all about money and business, whereas for me storytelling and art are about the human experience and spirit, so it’s no wonder these IP films are usually so poor.
It’s also that Disney own almost all the known IP, and will roll it out time and again as a safe bet with predictable returns - art by focus group simply isn’t a thing.
Capitalism, baybee!
Is this the innovation I was promised?
How are our corporate overlord supposed to know what a good story is other than the success of a movie based in them?
Ironically capitalism does not like to take much risk, nor do the large companies who are best able to take them. It also sucks that many things are switching to being ads supported, so there is further limiting of creativity. For example, Love, Death, and Robots is a really awesome animated anthology. It is something that does not try to have the broadest appeal; however, the customers are now advertisers who may not want to run ads on something with a narrower audience. Oddly it seems Netflix will be going down the path of YouTube battling that to keep the content adverts will buy space for, and YouTube trying to be independent of it with its premium. Strange world.
Love, Death + Robots is amazing and everyone should watch it.
Hell yeah, even the ones I didn’t like were well done and I’m glad I watched them.
For real.
They can ask chatgpt :D
