Jump to content

Talk:Super Mario Bros. (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Cult Status"[edit]

The lede states the film has attained "cult status" but is this really correct? the only quotes in the current page to support this are the director and producer who are hardly impartial. There are a few pages around the web that make a similar claim but most (if they're not repeating the claim by by Joffe and Jankel) of them seem to actually be connected to the SMB page, a specific fan page that a couple of chancers put together to promote their own fan sequel, or it's just being used as the sort of banal journalistic cliché that gets attached to any film that flops yet turns up its own wikipedia page. (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


How is this controversial? People aren't being shot or put in gulags for saying they liked this movie. MightyArms (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Edits[edit]

Is it truly necessary to make mention of edits done by fans of this film?

That Morton Cut is by a fan, not an official representative of the movie.

If we're going to mention fans and give them undue weight why not also mention that "Battle For Dinohatten" cut?

If not we would probably be better to erase the whole subject. Maxcardun (talk) 9:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Maxcardun: Hi, I'll try to clear some very very very very common misconceptions up for ya about how Wikipedia works, and address the goods that you're getting to. You said in your edit summary that you don't wanna be "that guy" but so far you're that guy who can be blocked for disruptive editing, especially due to WP:3RR, and for not reading WP:RS and WP:ELNO as I linked to you. I know it's not how most things work, but the only thing that matters in an encyclopedia is a reliable source which I'm pretty sure The Nerdist is and I'm absolutely sure a copyright violation on archive.org is not. So we don't ever under any circumstances link a blatant copyright violation, nor revert any same edit three times in a row.
Then there is the question of undue weight, which is the encyclopedic issue you mentioned. If some random dude does something out in the world and we link it directly, then it's just copyright-violating WP:FANCRUFT. But when a reliable source talks about it, then that magically envelopes it in the warm saving grace of WP:RS and becomes potentially encyclopedic within the realm of WP:UNDUE weight. It could get at least a sentence or sentence fragment. And in no circumstance is Wikipedia a linkfarm of indiscriminate external links to ensure that readers have easy access to whatever they might feel like looking up. It's not our job to link to the movie. It must be encyclopedic, or else the world can find it for itself.
So if Nerdist Industries is not a WP:RS even though it has its own Wikipedia article, then yeah the section is to be deleted. It's not mentioned at WP:VGRS so we could ask there. — Smuckola(talk) 19:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Smuckola: First off I just want you to know that I appreciate the candid way you are speaking to me. Second I know about the 3 revert rule very well, as you can see I did not do more than three (At least today). As for a reliable source being proven to be a reliable source because it has a Wikipedia Article, I personally think that is a matter of debate elsewhere as various Tabloid companies and Gossip Columns who are less than reliable have articles on Wikipedia.

The Nerdist, unless I am mistaken in this particular article is linking us to a page IN The Internet Archive, and Unless I am missing some kind of hardware, I myself cannot personally download it, despite the protests of User:NekoKatSun who said in his final revert that he "just did".

If downloading that is still possible I would LOVE to know how. Every channel I've tried put me at a dead end. So apologies I thought I was doing the world a favor. DON'T CALL ME A VANDAL Maxcardun (talk) 3:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Maxcardun: I didn't call you a vandal, I said your edits were becoming vandalism, because that's what repeatedly inserting the same thing boils down to. The Nerdist article (the reliable source) links to this Internet Archive page, which plays the video just fine for me. If it doesn't play for you, I'd suggest trying another browser or device. It's an mp4 and seems to work well with Chrome.
I'd also suggest not reinserting a challenged edit without discussing it on the talkpage first. You might want to review WP:BRD - apologies if that's presumptuous of me; it's something I'd normally suggest to a new user, but I see that you created this account a year before I created mine, so I'd expect you to have a good grasp of that policy. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 22:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NekoKatsun: Mister Neko, from mister Smuck, I think I understand the difference now between the Reliable Source and the one that wasn't proved reliable. Now allow me to embarrass all involved including me by pointing out something. At the time I first said it wasn't available anymore it truly was not. If you have the time to look back at that Archive page you notice that there are NOW two different links for that movie. One of them is marked VHS-1 and the other is marked DVD-1. The DVD-1 is rather new, and before there was only the VHS-1 and another video called "Iggy And Spike Rap". The Rap video is not there anymore, so in the time I first made that edit and the time you took a look at it today something must have happened. I have already posted a public thanks for that final revert as an apology so don't rub it in, and don't insult my intelligence over who made what account first! Maxcardun (talk) 23:134 1 July 2021 (UTC)

We need the disambiguation.[edit]

I don't care if it's not exactly the same name. Put the "the" in the wrong part of the name and you can accidentally be referring to the other movie. Serouj2000 (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, please see Wikipedia:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION, the articles and films have slightly different names so disambiguation between them is not necessary. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some people, when they're talking about this movie, especially before the announcement of the 2023 one, called it "The Super Mario Bros Movie" or "Super Mario Bros: The movie", and it could be a little jarring Serouj2000 (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Going by that logic, than (for example) Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events and A Series of Unfortunate Events (TV series) would be titled "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004 film)" and "A Series of Unfortunate Events (2017 TV series)" respectively. Inkster2 (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, one of them is a movie, the other is a tv series. In this case, BOTH are movies. Serouj2000 (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office[edit]

I can't find the number for the $38 million figure. (I've checked the newspapers) This source which the article uses [1] doesn't mention the $38 million figure at all. Timur9008 (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's a longer version of the article beyond a paywall? If not, it could be a hoax. We could use Box Office Mojo instead, which is clearly verifiable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've left Sudiani(the one who added the figure) a messege on his talk page asking about this. Timur9008 (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a hoax! As I posted on IceWelder's talk page the print version of Variety contained a chart of 100 films. Super Mario Bros. was listed 71st with a domestic gross for the calendar year of $20,915,465 and a foreign gross of $17,997,000 for a total of $38,912,465. It was one place behind Guilty as Sin with a worldwide gross of $38,996,215 and above Body of Evidence with $37,938,251. You can see the chart in the image preview at this link but the detail is likely not visible without a subscription or a visit to your local library. https://varietyultimate.com/archive/issue/WV-01-03-1994-40 Like most films of that year and earlier, Box Office Mojo does not have international grosses and this was the first year that Variety published this regular annual chart. Sudiani (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks reply! That explains it. Timur9008 (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]