![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I realize that someone went to a great deal of effort to write the plot section, but frankly, it's sorely lacking in context. Does a play-by-play account of each scene contribute anything to this article? Would a person who never saw this movie be interested? Does it have any bearing on current or historical issues?
What I'm trying to say is, it looks like fancruft. A summary seems more appropriate.
~ Eidako 13:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I, personally, enjoyed it. I see where you are coming from though, I was surprised at the amount of detail in comparison to summaries of other movies/topics. -- Dan N.
I tend to agree with Eidako. The plot summary is far too long for an encyclopedia article. I've added the appropriate flag. Gitman 18:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Now it isn't there at all, I'm confused.80.47.38.63 08:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone please add an infobox if I infact dont add it by someday? WB 05:35, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
What is the general community consensus? Keep the section up or not? I failed to find a single mention of it anywhere, either in rumour or fact form. Additionally, it is rather difficult for me to believe that anybody would actually believe that they would cast Barney as a character. I fail to see how such a rumour could possibly spread anywhere save in public school yards. Big budget movies, no matter where they're made, are not released with no mention, especially relatively modern ones. (Assuming that the sequel was made after the original.) Thoughts?
Note to 68.193.103.52: Discuss here, not in the Edit History, and please try to provide proof of your claims without resorting to name-calling. Keep the section deleted for now, until more opinions are given or proof is shown. Show me a reference to this rumour yourself -- if one is unavailable on the internet, then the rumour is far too small to be mentioned.
I've found no proof that a 140 minute director's cut of the film actually exists. Can anybody elaborate on this? (Ibaranoff24 00:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC))
Removed a lot of redundant trivia. (user:HannuMakinen)
I removed all but the references that are most directly involved with the plot. The section is at constant risk of over-flowing with trivia as well as Original Research (such as drawing references to Mario games released after the movie and other than Mario-games). I'll try to make the section a little more better now with the material already in there. -TheHande 07:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Returned the references-section into the body of text form. Please do not make it into a list again. Lists are magnets for useless info and fancruft. -TheHande 13:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
"The movie also had a big disadvantage in timing, in that it was released years after the video game Super Mario Brothers' popularity had peaked." I think it's not needed cause since the release of SMB1 the series' popularity never languished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.85.133.66 (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
They say some Wiki contributors can be protective of their contributions to a wiki-articles and that's definitely true. I am especially protective of the Game References section and I intend to keep it clean of any material that is either
Part of this protection is keeping the section as a body of text rather than a list since that is a very trivia-section way of doing things and a magnet for fancruft (as I've mentioned before). Additionally I try to keep the section clean of speculative statements like the bowl in which Koopa falls into is based on the Koopa Clown Car. No it's not, that is a piece of actual construction-equipment and not a reference to anything. Also Anthony Scapelli is based on Foreman Spike is more than just a little speculative as the two characters have no obvious similarities (as Scapelli looks more like suit than a foreman).
Connections to the games which are obvious, such as names of characters and such are worthy of reference as they are obvious. That doesn't mean there isn't redundancy in the material which could be removed, but please do not add anything obscure without a reference. If you feel that certain things like Daniella being based off of Pauline is too vague, feel free to remove it, but compared to the two references above this at least would seem likely. There are no sources for it though so if you want to remove it, go ahead. -TheHande 15:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering if any expert on the movie could add DVD details?
I'm going to bed now, if I get no answer, I will google it myself tomorrow. TheBlazikenMaster 22:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
There are rumours of a remake coming out 2010. I have no clue if it's true, I hope it is true.--Ryan Stinnett (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
how come someone deleted the page i made about the unused script? that was the real unused script. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.44.204 (talk) 08:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I made a section about the unused script, but when I linked Mark McCoy who was a designer who worked on the movie, you get a random Punk Rock singer guy. O.o
anyway here is the interview with the designer
http://www.smbmovie.com/SMBArchive/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=59 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamaluigibob (talk • contribs) 00:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
"The Nostalgia Critic gave a negative review of the film, citing Hopper's horrendous acting, how both Mario and Luigi's last names are "Mario", and that the movie is nothing like the game."
Urf...I'm iffy as to whether or not we should add the Critic. He's not an "official" reviewer, so should he be mentioned? --WeirdCapedGuy (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The lede of this article needs to be completely rewritten. The following is the longest run-on sentence I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and it is the bulk of the opening paragraph:
That is one hell of a sentence! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
((editsemiprotected))This page is being requested to be locked due to specific description problems. WikiLubber stated that the description is specific enough, but it isn't really. I demand that this page be locked.
This page should be locked, all right, to prevent the so-called "specific" information about the negativity of the film. None of that has any reliable source, and IMDB is not reliable enough. WikiLubber (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone want to explain why this film is included in the french-task force for films? None of the director's are French and to my knowledge it's not filmed there or based there at all. If no one can answer, let's remove that specific task-force. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Various IP addresses keep posting harsh (and often false without source) information about the reaction of the film. That must stop, for we are trying to make this a proper article. WikiLubber (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The legacy section previously had this written on it:
I reworked the first part since the way it used to be written it portrays the impression that the Mario surname was made canon by the movie. This is not true sincce the movie itself is not considered to be canon and neither Nintendo nor Miyamoto has made any comments regarding the real Surname. And while the text states that a Nintendo Power canonized the Mario surname in the late 2000s (which is in itself a weasel term), it fails to source it to which Nintendo Power issue it is referring to twice. Furthermore, the mention to the Nintendo Power use of the Mario surname has been tagged with [citation needed] since 2007, and due to it still not being properly sourced after two years I believe that it warrants a deletion from the text.
Also, the second paragraph read:
Again, besides this not being sourced, I believe this to be highly untrue since Miyamoto's career as a VG designer was already pretty cemented, even more so considering that the movie was a bomb of which Nintendo wants to forget about. In any case, it's more about it not being sourced and as such it falls as WP:SPECULATION. Veritiel (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)