Talk:The Super Mario Bros. Movie

Country of Production

Please do not use sources that just state certain companies involvement for the Production country. You'll need to find sources that specifically state the country of production over just companies involved because listing companies involved only is original research (see WP:OR). If there are discrepancies (and there often are with this kind of information in film articles, let's look at them on the talk page first.) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Also, there is a hidden note I placed reminding that the country of origin should be confirmed by reliable sources. If no reliable source is shown for other countries, the edit is reverted. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks @BaldiBasicsFan. I've expanded on some sources here to see if we can find some common grounds.

  • Screen Daily: US production.

  and uhh. that's all I could find. I feel if such a box office hit was a Japanese co-production, there would be details on how this was also breaking Japanese animation production records or some news of the hybrid. There is none. Looking at the actual film credits, outside the executive producers, there are no Japanese names involved. The very end credits also note that the film received some sort of tax-refund (possibly for some animation detail in France). This is all original research and shouldn't be applied, but so far, I'm not very convinced by it being technical Japanese production or co-production despite the Nintendo name on it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  As I have been asked to clarify, you can see the US credit in the Screen Daily article at the top where it states "Dirs: Aaron Horvath, Michael Jelenic. US. 2023. 92mins". The bold is my own emphasis. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  Outside googling, AllMovie also only lists "United States" as the country here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  I have just checked and the list of countries in AllMovies is 'Japan, United States'. Yuta5622 (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Andrzejbanas: I also see "Japan, United States" on AllMovie. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

The Numbers lists both Japan and the United States. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The Numbers just pulls their information from IMDb though, which we don't follow use per WP:RS/IMDb. I usually feel iffy about Box Office sites or sites like Rotten Tomatoes as specific credential information when their primary focus is to give financial details. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I am the one that originally removed Japan from the infobox and added the Screen Daily source for the US. I’m assuming someone added Japan because Nintendo is involved. Like previously stated, The Numbers pulls from IMDb. If we can find reliable sources that state it’s a Japanese co-production then we can certainly include it. However, I couldn’t find any. Mike Allen 21:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

How do you know that they pull their data from IMDb? Not that that's inconceivable, I'm genuinely curious. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Can't seem to find where I've found that (will share when I can find it), but even they state they give their own doubt for their production countries on their own site. Stating that "Note: Since we are still actively researching production countries, we consider this chart to be in beta mode." for their information on production countries and their box office.". That's enough for me to be iffy on using the site for anything really beyond Box Office info. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that secondary sources rarely refer to films in these terms (e.g. "American-Japanese co-production"). In this case, they often name the companies that are co-producing, "co-production between Illumination, Universal, and Nintendo". {{Infobox film}} also highlights the issue of determining the country of origin: There are no widely accepted international or even European definitions of the criteria to be used to determine the country of origin of a film. [...] Countries involved in a joint production are not always indicated (even when the main coproducer is from another country). If we use production company headquarters as the standard, the film is undoubtedly an American-Japanese co-production since Nintendo is headquartered in Japan. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The thing with that is, it gets complicated with these kind of items. Is this just "Nintendo" the company? Square I believe even made "Square Films" which was based on Hawaii for their Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. As stated above, if this was Japanese, there would be Japanese press stating how this is one of the highest grossing Japanese productions (or even co-productions). There hasn't been, so it gets more complicated even based on the rules. The rule you stated also appears to be for European co-productions, which this is not. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't care about the outcome. Just trying to illustrate why this is a complex issue. The EAO excerpt that {{Infobox film}} cites is not a rule that is supposed to be applied on Wikipedia, and I don't think I implied that at all. Again, just a way to illustrate the issue. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh totally. Doing these things is a nightmare and has gone harder as films have received funding from every which location now for tax and whatever reasons. All we can really do is go with what sources state. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Usually we could use the BFI or/and the AFI as reliable sources for this field. However, there's sill not an entry listed on either sites for this film. Mike Allen 02:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it's slow to the punch. I'm going to guess the BFI published Sight & Sound will review the film next month and have something published there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if BFI is always consistent with wikipedia rules. For example, the movie The three musketeers: D'Artagnan has France, Germany, Spain and Belgium on wikipedia, and only France on this BFI listing. Is it related to the fact that rules are different for European co-productions? Anyway, I agree that doing these things has gone harder. 2001:861:39C4:2340:3E52:9E4B:AF6C:EE22 (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Miyamoto recently did an interview where he explains: "Since we were creating this movie in both Japan and the United States, we thought we should make a Japanese version as well," he said. "When we decided to make this movie, we discussed creating a unique Japanese script from the beginning. Even if we were shown an English script, it would be hard to understand the subtle nuances." 2A00:23C6:1EBB:7701:1464:A33F:17CE:E643 (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't really state the technical elements of what makes it a Japanese production. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Which are what exactly..? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

It's complicated because it is not clear how much of the "funding" is actually coming to Nintendo on this and a certain percentage of the funds of the film are required to make something a production of the country. Even if they were split evenly, (which I would be surprised by), I'm not sure if that would be enough. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

This source is a review from a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association listing the movie as "United States/Japan". It seems as reliable as Screen Daily. 2001:861:39C4:2340:3E52:9E4B:AF6C:EE22 (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I've changed the infobox back to the United States. I don't think that the Australian board is a bad or unusable source, but just because one says one thing and the other says another, I don't think it makes one more correct than the other either. I'm suggesting now we drop "American" in the lead and leave it with just US for now, because that's the only one we know for sure. (Maybe we can add a hatnote?). Let's just wait for more sources to show up. As this is such a high grossing movies, I'm sure specific information will eventually rise from it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The "first blockbuster based on a video game"

The claim is being inserted into the article without a source. If you look at the Blockbuster (entertainment) article, it defines it as "is a work of entertainment [...] that is highly popular and financially successful." But you have Angry Birds, Resident Evil, and the like. I reverted this, which was in turn reverted with "those didn't make >430M, so they're not blockbusters." But A) according to whom; and B) then List of highest-grossing films based on video games shows that Warcraft and Detective Pikachu beat it out, so their claim is incorrect. ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Detective Pikachu grossed $433,230,304 in its whole lifespan and Warcraft grossed $439,048,914 in its whole lifespan. The Super Mario Bros. Movie grossed $871,836,610 within only 18 days from the premiere.

By today standards for a general blockbuster film, a film that grossed 440 million dollars won't be considered a blockbuster film, so Detective Pikachu and Warcraft are both blockbuster films in their category, but The Super Mario Bros. Movie is a general blockbuster film, which is an unusual case in this field of these films. and hence my edits. I hope that I'm now more clear now. זור987 (talk) 16:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem here is that you have not given a source for the standard of what makes a blockbuster. Given that you said in your edit summary that "didn't grossed more than max of 430 million dollars, so they aren't considered general blockbuster films", but then revised that here to 440 million dollars after I showed that the two films made more than 430M, it doesn't seem based on anything verifiable. ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR based on your personal definition of what constitutes a blockbuster. I'm confident you're not going to find a widely accepted definition in $-amounts, and even if you did, you'd need a source applying that definition to this film specifically. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't think it should be included. "Blockbuster" is not a numeric term and what it is compared to others of the past or present is highly subjective. I think just labelling it on it's gross gets the picture of how financially successful it is to an audience easier. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPOILER violations

I have clarified that Variety is reliable. However, I noticed that Blaze Wolf and MikeAllen have going trigger happy by removing the source from the website on post credit scenes. They apparently think that it belongs on Fandom more, although Fandom is less popular than Wikipedia. This seeks SPOILER violations and there hasn't been any consensus on removing that source at all! BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Linking the latest revert for visibility's sake. Despite the reliability of Variety, I agree that the claim that "These scenes may set up plots for a sequel." is in itself speculation and not verifiable, even if it seems really obvious. In omitting that claim, the rest of the text describing the post-credits scenes are not appropriate here either. A better addition would be a quote from Miyamoto, for instance, that a sequel is in the works. ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Do they have to say their always linked to a sequel though? While they do make a lot of speculation, their still apart of the film. Why remove spoilers just because of speculation or something? It's out of hand and I know WP:CRYSTAL policy, but regardless of speculation the post-credit scenes are always gonna be in the film. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem is not because describing the the post-credits scenes are "spoilers", they're not part of the overall plot and are not necessary for the average reader to grasp what happens in the film. At best, they're easter eggs, which Fandom favors. ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

MOS:FILMPLOT, which is part of the Manual of Style, says "The inclusion of mid- and post-credit scenes should be based on the same criteria used to evaluate the relevance of other scenes.". As Thomas said, they're little more than easter eggs. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 12:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

BoM vs The Numbers

Is there a reason why we use both in the infobox? The Numbers always seems to be more up to date than Box Office Mojo so I don't see why we should be using both. Is there a reasoning for this I'm not aware of? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 12:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Was about to ask the same Timur9008 (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

A Super Sequel?

https://thedirect.com/article/super-mario-bros-movie-2-sequel-prospects 83.21.11.143 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

That link basically says "we have nothing to confirm." Not really worth including in the article. ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2023

Add category Category:Action comedy films per LEETXEET (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)