Awful adaptations: remastered

Adaptations shouldn’t be too similar to the source 

RONNIE SAENZ / CONTRIBUTOR / THE USD VISTA

One   of    the    most    popular    video   game    franchises    of all   time,   “Super    Mario    Bros.” has      just       received     its     first  theatrical  adaptation since 1993. “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” released on   April 5, 2023,    was  met  with a $377 million global box office opening,  the   biggest   opening for   an     animated    film ever. It will      most   likely      go down as one of the most lucrative adaptations in cinema history, alongside the “Lord of the Rings” and The Marvel Cinematic Universe. 

Audiences loved “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” giving it a 96% on Rotten Tomatoes, but   critics   not  so   much   as the critic   score    on    Rotten Tomatoes is 59%. In     one    word, the critical     response    has     been   “meh,” with   many citing the lack of   characterization   and plot. Critics  and  audiences are butting heads once again, and I find myself somewhere in the middle. 

As     a     Mario   fan, I enjoyed    “The     Super   Mario Bros.     Movie,”    but      as      a    film   lover, this     movie        plays   it    too     safe.     There  is    a     reference   to    the source   material    in every frame.  It’s like   jangling   keys   in   front  of   a    toddler   in    hopes  of   calming    them. Even   characters  original   to   the   movie are references. Take for   instance   Mario   and    Luigi’s    father    and   uncle,  who    have   never     been     seen   or      mentioned    in     the source   material.    Even    though they    are    “original,”     they     bear a     striking     resemblance       to      Talon and     Ingo,    two      characters     from another    Nintendo      intellectual    property,    “The    Legend    of    Zelda.”    So      even     characters original   to  the film are references to pre-existing characters.

It’s a shame, because the parts of the film that were original  were the  parts I enjoyed the most, especially Bowser’s  musical number. It’s as    if    the  film  is    constantly on its   knees    begging   the audience to pay attention, and it’s very patronizing. I know my last article on video game adaptations called for more faithfulness to the source material, but a complete regurgitation of the material still can’t replace a compelling story, good writing or unique characterization.

In   my   last    article, “The     last of awful adaptations,” I talked    about   season  one of “The Last of Us” on HBO Max, and   how   it’s   so great    because   it    follows     the      game closely.  At    the   time   of    writing that   article,   only   the  first  two episodes    of   that show had been    released.   After    the   release    of the  article, I   saw  episode   three   and   my mind   changed. The   meat    of     episode     three      of    “The   Last     of    Us”   was     completely original,    yet    it    was a televised    masterpiece. Critics   and   audiences    agree   as well,   with IGN even   giving   it the highest    score   among    any   episode   in   the   season. Even though    it   wasn’t    from the game, “The Last of Us” episode   three   was amazing,   and    by far one of the most popular from the season.

This   is   evidence   that     taking risks   with    the     source     material   can    yield   something  audiences  and critics can equally like. By stepping outside the comfort zone of telling the exact same story as the game, “The Last of Us”  show gave us something new for old and new fans to enjoy.

Some may argue that “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” doesn’t need to be a groundbreaking film. After all, “Super Mario Bros” as a franchise  is  not   known for its  compelling  stories. Mario is meant   to be a versatile    mascot   and is used in a   number    of   different   video game genres. But  a  character   like   Joel from “The Last of Us” would look   out   of    place   playing   tennis or    racing      a    go   kart. Despite this, the “Super   Mario Bros” is known for originality. Every new Mario game features new ideas, new ways to play, new settings and characters. Mario   games     do   not    dwell   on old ideas, but instead expand on new ones. However, “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” didn’t try anything new. The    newest    thing  it  tries     is  that   Luigi    is captured by Bowser instead of Princess Peach. As such, originality is one of the lacking references in “The Super Mario Bros Movie”

“The Last of Us” and “Super Mario Bros” video game series are  on    the    complete    opposite  sides of the spectrum  when   it comes to   what    they  are trying to achieve. “The Last of Us” show wants to  create stories, and “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” wants   to create   family    fun, no matter what. Just because “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” prioritizes family fun, doesn’t excuse it for   heavily   depending on    references   to    create      that      fun. 

If you’ve played a “Super Mario Bros” game, you’ll know the   best  part is how unique  each  game  is, and how     that   uniqueness    and risk strengthens the game instead of diluting it. Wouldn’t you want the same standard to be applied to a Mario movie? Studios need to realize that 90 minutes of cameos and easter eggs may work to make an egregious amount of money, but it won’t keep audiences   engaged forever. I think audiences need to watch out for    adaptations    that   play it safe, because there is no reason to watch a Mario movie that only    shows   you   everything you’ve seen in a Mario game. 

There were many original moments in the film I liked. However, the film does push the limit for how many references I want in a film, and I definitely don’t want to encourage the making of films that   rely so heavily on recognition instead of plot and character arcs. “The Super Mario Bros. Movie” could set a precedent   for   all   adaptations to become   indulgent    of    the source material instead of respectful, which   would be tragic.