Talk:The Super Mario Bros. Movie/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Untitled Mario Film Teaser Poster.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

This article does not meet notability yet

As per WP:NF, "In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced." As we have only gotten an announcement of the voice cast and release date from the Nintendo Direct, this article does not belong on the Wikipedia mainspace and should remain in the draftspace. - Richiekim (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! The correct part of WP:NF that relates to this would be WP:NFF. I've proposed the article for deletion according to said policy. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2021

I have seen a lot of vandalism reports this page has been getting, and keeps getting semi-protected until days like 5 times already. If you redo it again, no date shall be selected. AVeganKid (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Ehh, I'm going to take that back. On Wednesday when I hopefully get access to the extended-confirmed user access, I will just extended-confirmed protect the page instead by myself. AVeganKid (talk) 07:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Keep protected

Just letting you know, there's an IP hopper still trying to add the TUFF Puppy reunion into the cast, over at List of American films of 2022, which I think they're trying to get away with because it's not protected and the sources over there prioritize release date over casting (which makes sense, but still). I'm glad to see I've at least been handling it properly--CreecregofLife (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Release changed

FYI, before there are possibly some unsourced changes here... movie release has been moved to April 2023. Magitroopa (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2022

For the title to be changed from "Untitled Mario Film" to "Untitled Super Mario Bros. Film" as that's the placeholder title that has been listed on the Universal Pictures Website for upcoming movies, an official source hasn't called the movie "Untitled Mario Film" FlumingoWiki (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

A new title??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHfKm0qZtDE

According to this YouTube video, is it true that Super Mario Bros. will be the film's title? FlapjackRulez (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. A posting on one of the animation companies working on the film does not definitely confirm a title. Wait until a reliable source confirms the name of the film. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@ThomasO1989 the Nintendo Direct announcement confirms the title Serouj2000 (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

They could just be referring to it as the "Super Mario Bros film" because it's the one they announced it as. Best to wait. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Change the "Untitled Mario Movie" to "The Super Mario Bros. Movie"

Nintendo put a live stream that's going to be on October 6, 2022 and it says Nintendo Direct: The Super Mario Bros. Movie meaning Nintendo gave a official name to the movie so please the Wikipedia article's name because has a name now Himyfriends123 (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• Wait there is no hurry to change the page's name, either wait for the Direct or until an official/reliable source confirms the name

-Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 20:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

ok Himyfriends123 (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

And they could be referring to it as "The Super Mario Bros. Movie" because it's a movie about Super Mario Bros. (they're most likely not referring to the film Super Mario Bros. (film) which was most likely very loosely based on the games) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree with @Gouleg:. Let's wait until October 6, when the trailer comes out. ZX2006XZ (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Worth noting the official website domain is "thesupermariobros.movie" (as linked in the verified twitter account @supermariomovie) and the bottom of the site shows the following text: "Official movie site and trailer for The Super Mario Bros. Movie. In Theaters 2023." Thanksolotl (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This could just be a tentative name. However, it does occur multiple times in the page's source code in alt texts and JSON. The article title has already been changed on the Japanese Wikipedia, so maybe it should be changed here as well, as reliable sources have already picked the name up. HaiFire3344 (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't in a hurry, so we can wait until the trailer release. We don't need to change the article title twice and have double redirects to fix. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2022

While its funny that mario's butt is smaller and there was some news about it I do not find that the information be relevant to the article RoseWaterSkies (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Already done done by User:Gouleg ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I swear I was following this page until today I wasn't for some reason, idk when did I click to unfollow this page or wikipedia simply did it for me -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 14:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Official Title

As seen here, the official title for the film is The Super Mario Bros. Movie. Thus, I've reverted the edits regarding the "alleged title", because its literally official. DecafPotato (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Wait for confirmation on the date of the reveal. It could just be a placeholder they're using until they can reveal the actual title. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Obviously no page move because that's unnecessary fixing in case it changes, but given this is the new WP:COMMONNAME, I don't see a reason to not include it in the main body. DecafPotato (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

How is it already the common name if they literally only just started calling it that? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

You could argue that "Untitled Mario film" was never the common name, and this is the first time there has been any consensus over what to call it. I don't know exactly what policy to cite, but I know it's there, but fan terms (like the current article title) should only be used in place of an official title if it is undoubtedly the common name (e.g. Superman 64), in which case this is not. DecafPotato (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. "fan terms" isn't the best phrase, but, like whatever "untitled __ film" is (like "Sequel to The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild" instead of "Tears of the Kingdom" DecafPotato (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

In that case people just referred to it as the BOTW sequel or BOTW 2. Neither of which were used in the article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The article was titled "sequel to TLoZ BotW" prior to the announcement of "Tears of the Kingdom" DecafPotato (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it was actually Untitled Sequel to BOTW. Let me look. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

From the article history:

ThatOneGuyThatLikesPortal moved page Untitled The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild sequel to The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom

So yeah, was "untitled", similarly to this movie. In any case, I've created "The Super Mario Bros. Movie" as a redirect to this article, we can move the article there if it goes by that title come tomorrow. DecafPotato (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Ehhh.... that might need to be different since it could be confused with Super Mario Bros. (film) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

redirect notice hatnote added DecafPotato (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Usually people won't refer to films that aren't released by "Untitled X film". They just refer to it as (For example with Minions cause that's all I think of for some reason) the "new Minions movie" ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not so sure if that's the offical title or just a placeholder until the actual announcement. Ive noticed a lack of logos for the movie, perhaps this is because it has a different unannounced title? We can't be sure until the presentation tommorow. Nintentoad125 (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The introduction section repeats itself

The second part of the introduction section repeats itself in the production section, specifically at "Following the commercial failure of the 1993 film" 201.151.27.242 (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

That's cause it's the lead. It mentions things that are in the actual article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 12:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2022

The name of the film has been confirmed to be "The Super Mario Bros. Movie", therefore I'd like to change the name of the page. NancerOne (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Read #Official Title and #A new title?? above. We are currently waiting for the Direct so we have official confirmation that isn't just a temporary name. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Title confirmation.

@Gouleg: @Blaze Wolf: Get a load of this: https://twitter.com/dfffaz01/status/1577998494052352000?s=20&t=U7jm0WlkqGZRty8LExdgmw ZX2006XZ (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@ZX2006XZ: I can't view the source tell me what it says. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@ZX2006XZ: By any chance are you dfffaz01 on twitter? -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 13:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gouleg: I'm not dfffaz01. @Blaze Wolf:, if you look at the picture, you should see something called a "kids surprise & delight program" from McDonald's. The logo for the Mario Movie, Mario himself and Peach are in the January section of the picture. ZX2006XZ (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh. We should still wait until the trailer since it could have been faked. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

My bad, thanks for clarifying. I agree with Blaze Wolf btw, no much hurry until the Direct properly confirms the title -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 13:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

So why has someone moved the article to "The Super Mario Bros. Movie" when the title has not been confirmed by official sources? -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 18:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll move it back since it goes against consensus here on talk. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I’ll be on the Nintendo direct to see what is going on. I’ll let you guys be notified when it comes out. Wolfquack (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I will (hopefully) be as well. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I’m not usually (if ever) this hyped for a trailer or Nintendo Direct, but I’m honestly extremely hyped for the trailer. Wolfquack (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm usually hyped for Nintendo Directs but I'm extremely hyped for this one. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

TBH I’m less concerned about the name of the movie and more concerned to whether MatPat is going to be right about the plot of the movie. Wolfquack (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I kinda doubt it considering he himself says "But hey, that's just a theory, a Game Theory" meaning he's literally just guessing based on information given. But you never know. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Wait a second, I just noticed that the Nintendo direct says “The Super Mario Bros Movie”! Wolfquack (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

We're aware of that, however it could just be a temporary title before they confirm the actual one. We are waiting until they explicitly say it in the Direct (and if they don't then I guess we can just move it to that title). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I’ll keep that in mind. Wolfquack (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Change title of the article

The movie has an official title the Super Mario Bros. Movie and to reflect that change it most be changed. JLMJXD (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

See earlier discussion. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: speedily moved uncontroversially now that the title has been 100% confirmed and 100% announced. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Untitled Mario film → The Super Mario Bros. Movie – Official title, as described in the announcement for a trailer DecafPotato (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

There are currently no references or mentions in the article that validate this claim. But besides that, there doesn't seem to be anything preventing you from moving the article since the article isn't move-protected and I'm assuming you are autoconfirmed. Steel1943 (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

It says I need to be extended-confirmed, and I'm at, like 470 edits. But I'll add some references. DecafPotato (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah yep, I see it now: moving requires and extended-confirmed editor. I'm still concerned about the "references or mentions" issue, so I'm going to move this to the "contested" section. Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

@DecafPotato: Ping requester to let them know the discussion has moved here. Steel1943 (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd wait for a move to commence. Best to wait until an official source is given. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 19:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Wait for them to announce it in the direct. See the above sections relating to this. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  Just as a note, if they announce it as such in the Direct then I am in full support of the move. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  Annoyingly, because people couldn't wait for the Direct to actually happen we have to go through this process instead of moving it as soon as the title was confirmed. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  They have just confirmed the name in the recent Nintendo Direct. GooseTheGreat (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  ALright. Should we just move it then or wait for this RM to elapse? Since the consensus prior to this was to wait until the Direct. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Wait per Blaze Wolf, this is probably the official title based on a recent leak but it should only be moved once the Direct confirms it. HaiFire3344 (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The direct confirmed the title to be The Super Mario Bros. Movie. Inkster2 (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support The Super Mario Bros. Movie I also saw the Direct and believe it's time, and we don't need a parenthesis descriptor as it's the only film titled as such. aeromachinator (talk to me here) 20:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Now, it's even more confirmed, it even has a logo Serouj2000 (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I saw the trailer and I can confirm that the movie is called The Super Mario Bros. Movie. ZX2006XZ (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@ZX2006XZ: Would it be appropriate to move it then or do we have to wait for the RM? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Same here. I'm going to move the talk page to Talk:The Super Mario Bros. Movie. Busition (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/illumination/status/1578116271777845248?s=20&t=3cKpgLEzkB9VP8N0jKz6DA ZX2006XZ (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Do we need the disambiguator of "2023 film" or would the word "The" be enough? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, It shoudln't be needed since this is technically a different title than the 1993 film. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I think add the 2023 in in case people confuse it for the 1993 film. Busition (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

When two titles are really similar, we just use a "not to be confused with" thing. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Template:Distinguish, to use its proper name. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Support move to The Super Mario Bros. Movie, with a hatnote disambiguation linking to the earlier movie. TheHumanIntersect (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The category: Films scored by Brian Tyler needs to be added on to this page please

The main reason why is because he's the main composer of this movie, and we really need that category on this page please.2604:3D08:5C87:4500:B42F:4C:4310:196F (talk) 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Added. TheHumanIntersect (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

"We Are Born to Play"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L-QVlJzvyo Will it be true that the closing song for the movie be "We Are Born to Play" by Galantis ft. Charli XCX? FlapjackRulez (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

As far as we know, No. 'We Are Born to Play' hasn't been confirmed by any official or trustworthy source to be the film's closing song. There is alot of speculation that it would be that song, but right now the speculation remains as is. I guess we just have to wait and see the film to truly confirm it. D2Owiki (talk) 16:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

UK Release in Cinemas

Nobody has mentioned the UK release which is slated for March 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.23.252 (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Needs information on positive reception to Pratt's voice

Yesterday I attempted to add that a portion of the fans reacted positively to Pratt's Mario voice, but I couldn't find any "reliable" sources. The size of the positive reaction is far from negligible, so I think this warrants a mention. Can someone help in trying to find a good source for this? (The LA Times source doesn't work for this as it doesn't offer any opinions on the voice outside of the moviemakers themselves.) Sincerely, the awesome^{[citation needed]} IceKey8297. 16:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

If you can't find reliable sources, I would guess it isn't worth mentioning in the first place. "A portion of the fans reacted positively" will always be true for something that has a sufficiently large number of fans. WPscatter ^t/_c 21:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2022

I would like to edit please 2607:FEA8:6525:2300:3998:B8E9:4BEC:B487 (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. @ScottishFinnishRadish: Usually when I see an editor or IP that's just like "I would like to edit please" I usually interpret that as them asking to be able to edit the page. However your interpretation can work too. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 23:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

First release date

The article currently states that the movie will be first released in germany on March 23. This does not seem to be correct, in Belgium the movie will be released on March 22. https://nl.universalmovies.be/micro/super-mario-bros Paaseierendoos (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel like the release date should only matter if either A. It's the date that the first screening of the movie came out, B. It's the release date of the country that worked on the movie, or C. The world premiere of the movie. There is no reason to be listing every release date on there. 2600:4040:12AD:3600:C84C:B7DC:41CB:56E9 (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

UK release added (DO NOT REMOVE)

The UK release date for the film is March 31st, 2023. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jac Clow (talk • contribs) 18:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Mtn dew and sports advertising

Illumination announces a new update saying that Luigi which is known for Charlie day announced a mtn dew ad the feature the super Mario movie 2023. Also a sports advert featuring Mario, Luigi, peach, and toad. JTnofwiki (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Seinfeld429 (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Mario movie advertises JTnofwiki (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Game Awards Trailer Premiere

A new trailer for this movie will premiere at the 2022 Game Awards on Thursday, December 8. Here’s my source: https://comicbook.com/gaming/amp/news/super-mario-bros-movie-trailer-new-nintendo-rumor/ Supermariodude85 (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not actually confirmed. The guy was simply just guessing, and even the article itself says it may not be a new trailer. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Japanese voice actors

THis may seem like a stupid question, however should we include the Japanese voice actors for the film? I'm only asking because the film has ties to Japan since, well, Mario comes from Japan (not canonically but the character and series itself originated in Japan) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

It's added in the Japanese article Gamowebbed (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, what that guy said Supermariodude85 (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Eric Bauza voice role

Eric confirmed on his Twitter that he is voicing a Koopa Troopa soldier. I would send a link, but Wikipedia won't let me. SuperWikiBrother (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Apart from the silly emoji tweet that was deemed to not be a proper confirmation, I can't find anything. You sure you can't link it here on this talk page? Sincerely, the awesome^{[citation needed]} IceKey8297. 15:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, the Super Mario Wiki article says that he voices a Koopa Troopa, so there's that. SuperWikiBrother (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Their cited references are precisely the silly emoji tweets that I just mentioned. It's pretty likely that that's what he meant, but by its nature Wikipedia requires a much more explicit confirmation of exactly what his role in the film is. (And in case you were wondering, MarioWiki itself absolutely cannot be used as a reference since anyone can edit it.) Sincerely, the awesome^{[citation needed]} IceKey8297. 17:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay then. SuperWikiBrother (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The Super Mario Bros. Movie logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Protection request

This article has been getting a lot of vandalism raids recently, mainly in the cast section. I think this article should be protected to prevent it from happening this often. SuperWikiBrother (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Marketing section

This is the status of the "Marketing" section we are talking about. I removed the whole section because it was merely listing each trailer, and then sourcing a site that just reposted people's reactions from twitter. Even listing every image/poster release. For example: "On October 5, an image was posted on Discord that spread to other sites featuring a new render of Mario's face and upper body, closely resembling his appearance in the poster revealed the previous day. The image came from a McDonald's calendar. While reactions were generally positive, online discourse centered around small alterations to Mario's face, with many describing the slightly more realistic design as initially off-putting, evoking comparisons to Sonic's original film design in the 2019 Sonic the Hedgehog trailers." Really? This is something you would see on the Mario Fandom Wiki (and rightfully so). This also borders WP:UNDUE and listing WP:INDISCRIMINATE details especially since it was the largest section of the article. I'm sure it can be shortened to a paragraph. @NoobMiester96: I'm wondering why you reverted with no reasoning? Mike Allen 16:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The section is tedious and most of it needs to go. However, there is some interesting commentary relating to Pratt's accent that probably should remain. Betty Logan (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:FILMMARKETING, you can go ahead and remove or hide any content that does not have commentary attached. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

commentary about pratt's VO work and Mario's design are worth including imo--they meet the standards set out by FILMMARKETING, but the section definitely needs trimming. DecafPotato (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Since this still seems to be under dispute, how should we adjust it so that it fits MOS:FILMTRAILER/WP:UNDUE/WP:INDISCRIMINATE? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The commentary on Pratt's voice is fine (a whole section about is not). I have never seen a Marketing section be filled with "reviews" on every piece of marketing poster/video/soundbite. We don't need to list every time a trailer or clip is shown. At this point, with the film not being released for another 3 months, I guess we should just go ahead and merge it to "The Super Mario Bros. Movie marketing". Look at it this way, in 20 years will readers care about what date a trailer or picture was released?

• "Viewers praised the poster's faithfulness to the usual aesthetic of the series, though many jokingly lamented the apparent reduced size of Mario's rear" Oh look FIVE there's references to this statement. Polygon says nothing like this. The other sites are pulling random tweets off of Twitter.
• "Some viewers who disapproved of Pratt's performance declared their intent to watch the film in French upon the release of the European French version of the trailer, in which Mario's voice, provided by Pierre Tessier, earned praise for its energy and similarity to Martinet's portrayal." - source says "After the English trailer was released, Twitter users managed to track down a version that had been dubbed in French and admitted they wanted to watch that version of the movie instead." Again Twitter uses.
• "On November 28, Nintendo announced that the second film trailer would be released the next day in a Nintendo Direct" -- OK just write about it the next day?
• Oh, it is written the next day too! "On November 29, the second trailer was shown in the Nintendo Direct.
• "Another teaser poster was released, depicting the empty throne room of Princess Peach's castle." Wow.
• "The clip was positively received by viewers for its abundant musical and visual references to the Super Mario games; while Pratt's performance was still considered "somewhat joyless" by some viewers" There's no review in the sources, EW just literally describes the trailer. Same with this source. So what viewers are we talking about?

It feels like we are really giving undue weight to these "viewers". Most of the sources don't back up the statements with critical commentary. Just Twitter users. I can keep going but I hope that clears up what is wrong with that section. Mike Allen 15:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should not be using sources that simply jsut pull random Tweets from Twitter. That's why I self-reverted myself when I first added the newest bit because the only source I found was just listing random Tweets which I did not think was appropriate. I feel like we should start treating them as WP:UGC since they're essentially just listing Tweets. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I would remove some of stuff myself, however I don't wanna remove too much information. I'm trying to think if there's somewhere we could go to ask for some help in cleaning it up. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This is what I have proposed. Like I figured, a lot of those sources that had "public reactions where..." never said anything in the actually sourced article about said reactions. Mike Allen 19:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I like it! I do think that we should still include the reactions to Seth Rogen's Donkey Kong since the section shouldn't be dedicated just to Chris Pratt's Mario voice, however if the only sources for Seth Rogen's Donkey Kong that exist are just pulling from Twitter then I'd say it's best to wait until better sources come out. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

May need some copyedits. Click Mike Allen 20:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you think the sentence that reads: "The Guardian likened the response to Pratt's voice to the backlash against the first trailer of Sonic the Hedgehog (2020)" should be changed to read "In a newsletter from The Guardian, the response to Pratt's voice to the backlash was likened to the reactions to the first trailer of Sonic the Hedgehog (2020)"? I'm only asking as this appears to be The Guardian newsletter or I guess Blog as it appears to be written from the opinion of the editor. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would be more appropriate. I didn't realize that. You're welcome to make changes and I'll leave the discussion open for another day to see if others have any input. Mike Allen 20:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright sounds good. I might mention the specific person who wrote it since it's written from their opinion and seems to be against video game movies (which I frankly think they're overreacting as I read it but that's my opinion), rather than written neutrally. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

If no one disagrees with the proposed writing, I'm going to add it in. Mike Allen 21:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I might disagree with you, I think this should be added to this article and since most changes happen all the time, I feel like it is necessary to have it included. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC) "since most changes happen all the time" what exactly do you mean by this? Just cause changes are happenign does not mean it belongs in the article. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC) It means that the article is frequently updated all the time. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC) That has absolutely no relevance to what is being discussed. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Just about every article on Wikipedia is updated "all the time". Do you have anything substantial to add to a conversation? It seems like you have followed Blaze Wolf here given your lengthy talk page warnings and blocks. Mike Allen 17:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC) No thanks, I will move on from now. 204.129.232.191 (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@67.180.101.115: really did a thorough clean up. I went through and snipped some more unnecessary details. I think it looks much better. Mike Allen

Stop deleting the Game Awards section, it is valid information since it gives more of an idea of the consensus of Pratt's Voice and is substantial footage for the film Speedymcfly (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to go into detail about what people think of Pratt's voice every time a new trailer is released. It all boils down to "some people like it, some people don't." That would be Reception, not Marketing. ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Jeannie Elias

Whether Jeannie Elias voices a character in the SMB Plumbing ad is not verifiable, it stems from a random tweet that suggests. The most recent attempt to put this into the article used a source that says "numerous fans have suggested the voice [...] is Jeannie Elias". That's not a reliable source. This should not be in the article until a reliable source (say, Elias herself or otherwise someone involved with the production of the movie) is given. ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Where's the Official Poster?

So I was looking through the Marketing section and found no information about the official theatrical poster that was in the infobox. Can someone please add it? Mariomovie23 (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

What kind of information are you referring to? If you mean something like "The official theatrical poster was released on February X showing Mario, Luigi, etc" then that's not necessary. It's a run-of-the-mill movie poster and there's nothing notable beyond that. ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2023

Under the casting section of the article, when Spike’s voice actor is revealed, Mario’s name should have an apostrophe. This will be a grammatical correction. 124.187.228.71 (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 Question: Are you referring to he was voicing Spike, Mario and Luigi's boss from the game? M.Bitton (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The request is slightly unclear, but regardless there is no place in the casting section where there should be an apostrophe after Mario but isn't. "Mario and Luigi's" is grammatically correct. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Eric Osmond

Is it Confirm or any source that Eric Osmond is Editing this Movie Jfavela599 (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reliable source or official confirmation of an editor. 2607:FEA8:761B:C900:389E:DC70:C596:5491 (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Marketing (2)

The final trailer information is missing in the Marketing section. We definitely need to add a consensus before adding it. But why is every registered user adding information about the final trailer without a consensus? 2607:FEA8:761B:C900:BD4B:4EA:AD0F:6508 (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

How do we add a consensus before re-adding the final trailer's information? 2607:FEA8:761B:C900:A14E:498:DA59:6364 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to say that it was released? Mike Allen 23:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

There was some information for the first two trailers and the first two clips and the plumbing commercial. The information says what the footage was. 2607:FEA8:761B:C900:9C4E:F5A0:5207:245F (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. We will just say it was released. 2607:FEA8:761B:C900:F032:5B6E:CCD6:7D8E (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

And...? What does the general reader gain from knowing that another trailer was released? What makes it different from any other movie trailer? Will knowing that this trailer was released still be useful after the movie is released, let alone months or years from now? ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Unlike other films, this film's trailers are shown in Nintendo Directs before being available on Illumination's YouTube channel and shown in theaters when accompanying other theatrical films. 2607:FEA8:761B:C900:78F1:79D:FE47:5858 (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Knowing that the trailer was released will definitely still be useful after the release of the film. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS:TRAILER recommends against listing every trailer released just for the sake of it. I fail to see how it'll "definitely still be useful" following the release of the film and spark interest to anyone but hardcore fans. ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you remove the marketing section after the release of the film. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Why? I don't see any reason to remove the marketing section after the film releases because that information is still relevant to the film's production. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Premise

I feel that we shouldn't include the premise until it is officially revealed, rather than include it through a leak. Currently it's promotionally worded ("whirlwind of adventure") and is sourced to a 4chan leak. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Either wait for reliable sources to publish their own and summarize or don't include one at all. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Ditto. 2603:6010:8B45:FA00:1801:CA85:B0CC:AFD6 (talk) 07:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems however that a Plot Synopsis is on Rotten Tomatoes, which seems to be official due to Comcast partially owning Rotten Tomatoes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedymcfly (talk • contribs) 11:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Uh, a basic plot summary is in the video description of the final trailer on Youtube. Should we add something akin to that as a placeholder until it comes out? Carguy1701 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no rush. We can wait another week until the movie is released before writing a coherent and comprehensive plot summary. ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

About that New Source in the Cast Section…

…I find it to be a little problematic because:

1) It lists who the characters are in the games, not what roles they'll play in the movie. Even if the movie is strongly game-accurate, it doesn't necessarily follow the source material to the letter. For example, Foreman Spike is traditionally the leader of the Wrecking Crew, but various citations in the Marketing section describe him as the Bros. former employer, their main reference being the official Website promoting the fictional "SMB Pluming". I think we should wait until we find a source stating who they are in the movie, not who they are in the games, which we may have to wait for until the movie is actually released.

2) Expanding on Point 1, it claims that Mario is an Italian man based on the statement that Pratt will voice "the beloved Italian plumber", but there are two ways to interpret this:

A) He's literally making the plumber a native of Italy despite the commercials showing him and Luigi to be residents of NYC.

B) He's voicing a plumber who is famous for being Italian in the games but will not necessarily give him the iconic accent for the movie, which, of course, he isn't.

Furthermore, the production section says that the directors wanted to make the Bros. Italian American, as they were generally thought to be before Yoshi's Island created that infamous time paradox. The two neighboring sections contain a clear contradiction.

What would you say to removing the citation and the character descriptions altogether until we find a better source? We need only wait eight more days. Colonel Knight Rider (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Where's the Final Trailer?

The final trailer should be in the Marketing section. The trailer was released one day before Mario Day. Supermariodude85 (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

It’s on YouTube. Oh, did you want the page to say exactly say when each trailer was released? The Fandom page should have all those trivia details. Thanks. Mike Allen 12:32, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I meant information ABOUT the trailer, Mike. 75.106.35.213 (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

What information on or from the trailer can't be obtained by simply waiting 3 more weeks, watching the film, and writing out a dedicated and coherent Plot section? There's no deadline. We're not pressed to document every character the trailers show or plot details they reveal. ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Then does that mean we can remove the descriptions of what the trailers reveal? Colonel Knight Rider (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Getty Images

SHould we really be using Getty Images as a source? Especially since it's a Word Document it could have a bunch of completely fake stuff in there. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

UK release still not mentioned

The teaser trailer for the UK release has been confirmed to be March 2023, though no date for the month has been confirmed as of yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.0.75 (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

who cares lol, the UK is a joke country. 111.220.175.144 (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

We don’t make those kinds of comments on Wikipedia. If you’re gonna use the talk pages at least say something that contributes to the corresponding article and its quality. SuperWikiBrother (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Where's the plot?

There should be a plot,or at least a premise, right? Drumerwritter (talk) 07:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Apostrophe Error

When citing the critics' consensus from Rotten Tomatoes, the apostrophe in "Nintendont's" is in the wrong place. It should be "Nintendon'ts," which is what Rotten Tomatoes actually says. Source: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_super_mario_bros_movie I would've gone ahead and changed it on the thing, but I'm not sure how to edit Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:25FB:7E00:693C:60FE:B46A:6299 (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding mid- and post-credit scenes to plot summary

Hi all! Having seen the movie at the cinema last night (...meh), I was wondering if it might be worth adding a bit info about the mid- and post-credit scenes to the end of the plot summary?

Perhaps something like:

*Spoiler warning if you haven't seen the film yet!*

'In a mid-credits scene, a still-shrunk Bowser protests his treatment whilst being kept in a cage inside Peach's castle. In a post-credit scene, a white-and-green egg begins to hatch in the sewers underneath Brooklyn.'

I'd make the change myself, but not sure I'm allowed due to the article's semi-protection. Anyway, just a thought! Goldhawk12 (talk) 13:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

No, see WP:FILMPLOT JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, spoiler warnings are completely inappropriate. WP:SPOILER explains it ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE

Per WP:LEADCITE, we don't need a ref here in the lead body as they are sourced in the article content. Anyone who did a ref in the lead body will be reverted and dealt with. LancedSoul (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2023

Could you link The Super Mario Bros. Movie (soundtrack) in the music section 223.178.84.225 (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done MilkyDefer 15:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2023

Please remove the sentence "A sequel is in development." as there's no exact mentions from the company at all from the main paragraph. Also there's no source either.

"The Super Mario Bros. Movie was theatrically released in the United States on April 5, 2023. The film has grossed $377 million worldwide and received mixed reviews from critics. A sequel is in development." <- Bold text that should be removed. 139.194.102.155 (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Why did the box office get lower

Why did the box office numbers change? First it said $92.9 million, but now it says only $58.2 million. Why is that? LeotheBoy1110 (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

according to some reports it's 360M globally Braganza (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Those are the projected numbers for the weekend, but those can't be included because they're WP:CRYSTALBALL. We can only include confirmed box office numbers, which we'll get next week or some time after. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

As pointed out we should wait for the confirmed numbers. Timur9008 (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The Numbers and BoxOfficeMojo have conflicting numbers again. What should happen now? 98.216.67.148 (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

We will know how much the movie has made in its opening weekend after the weekend is over. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

"Biggest animated opening" is being misreported

Not sure what we'd want to do about that here, but this didn't actually have the biggest opening ever for an animated movie - that title still goes to the remake of The Lion King, which the sites reporting on the Mario opening are completely ignoring despite The Lion King still being verifiably #1. I've marked the idea of Mario being #1 as "dubious" on the article for now since I have a feeling that removing the statement entirely would just result in someone putting it back again. Alphius (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

According to Disney, the 2019 remake of The Lion King was not an animated fіlm but a live-action reboot. See the "Box office" section for more info. LancedSoul (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Whether something is animated or not is a factual situation; it can't even be an opinion. And that article also literally says that it had the biggest opening for an animated film. Alphius (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

perhaps the best thing is to include a note depicting The Lion King’s opening, though if both Disney and the publications don’t count the film in the animated records I don’t see why we should.

TropicAces (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

"You just got Luigi'd" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect You just got Luigi'd has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 10 § You just got Luigi'd until a consensus is reached. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 14:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

"Untitled Super Mario Bros. film" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Untitled Super Mario Bros. film has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 10 § Untitled Super Mario Bros. film until a consensus is reached. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 15:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

"Untitled Mario film" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Untitled Mario film has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 10 § Untitled Mario film until a consensus is reached. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 15:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Audience section

Okay, this film clearly deserves an audience response section. The difference between the critic response (i.e. 54% on RT) and audience (i.e. 96% on RT) has been reported on many secondary, independent sources giving significant coverage about this fact. There are no rules that prohibits audience sections and RT scores. By the way, the RT scores are being cited with RS, not RT itself.

Hopefully we can reach a consensus about this. To me it's clear that the pollarization between the critic and audience scores got sufficient coverage in RS to get its own section. Skyshifter ^talk 23:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources with significant coverage about this fact include [1], [2], [3], and [4] cites it. There could be more that I'm missing. It's clear however that not even mentioning the existence of that pollarization is just omitting clearly relevant information reported by RSes. Skyshifter ^talk 23:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@MikeAllen, TropicAces, and Blushmallorn:. Skyshifter ^talk 23:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: you said above that "If reliable sources make note of the contrasting scores [between critics and audiences] then that can be mentioned". Now that there are sources mentioning it, I'd like to know if you agree with the inclusion. Skyshifter ^talk 23:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no opposition to an Audience response section, but just noting there are noted rules against including the RT audience score as a scoring metric (see the WP:MOSFILM). TropicAces (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand that RT scores shouldn't be cited just for the sake of it, but I thought an exception could be made because I am citing secondary sources. Skyshifter ^talk 00:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

MOS:FILMAUDIENCE states Audience reception: This content is not necessarily intended to be a standalone section, or a subsection, in a film article. Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore and PostTrak (include both if available), may be used and placed in the appropriate release or reception-based section CinemaScore and PostTrak are already mentioned in the reception section and appropriately cover audience reception. Audience reception is not meant to have its own seperate standalone section or subsection. Blushmallorn (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The cited policy is not necessarily, I'm assuming this is because in most cases the Audience reception is not notable enough or reliable enough to have it's own section. Is there an essay about this or any discussions to provide nuance to the policy? In this case, given the disparity, and a significant number of secondary sources commenting on this it might make sense for a standalone section (but I doubt it). Obviously this would need consensus before inclusion in a stand-alone section, but I see no reason to not include a brief summary of what the sources are commenting on in regards to the audience reaction in the reception section. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that Audience sections don't make sense in most cases. I think it's clearly different for this movie, though. If there is no consensus for a section, at least a phrase should be added citing the disparity. Skyshifter ^talk 00:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The disparity is notable. However, given the material provided, we should establish how it's deserving of a section on its own. An honorable mention here would make the most sense, probably along with the CinemaScore or somewhere else that's appropriate. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 14:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't bring me into this. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. Skyshifter ^talk 00:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how there is that much of a discontent of audience and critics scores. We should not going by just scores anyway. If anything, this about " BoredElonMusk" should not be included. Also, the Forbes contributor sources were deleted by another editor per WP:FORBESCON. This is why audience receptions hardly ever work out. Just stick with the CinemaScore and PostTrak. People can go to Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb and all the other movie sites to get audience scores. We can't add audience reviews, so why the scores? Mike Allen 14:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Partially agree, in addition to the CinemaScore / PosTrak, in the reception section I believe it's appropriate to call out the disparity between the audience scoring and the critics score on RT (and other aggregators too, if theres RS), as it's well-sourced, but that's about it. The rest of the stuff seems WP:NOTEVERYTHING, I suspect we both agree there. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

BBC News has posted an article on the disparity between the Critic and Audience scores of Super Mario Movie.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-65230431

But BBC News isn’t a reliable source is it?

Gold333 (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSPBBC suggests it is, and there are quite likely others as well. My opinions are based on the presumption there is reliable sourcing that discusses the disparity (my assumption is that there are). Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The BBC just mention it in one sentence. We need significant coverage of this for it to not be WP:UNDUE. Mike Allen 15:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

One thing that comes to mind from audience reception inclusions is that they are not always just from the disparity but from something that drives it. The Last Jedi received many negative reviews for perceived progressive messages. Captain Marvel has its section mention negative reviews for its seeming push of a feminist message.

I think this gets lost in the conversation too much, and any noticeable difference alone should not be enough, as this could apply to dozens of articles. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 15:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I added a small phrase about it. Hopefully we can all agree on this addition. As long as the fact it at very least mentioned brefly in the article, I am okay with it. It's clear that the contrasting scores received significant coverage to be at least mentioned in a phrase. I am okay with not having a section dedicated to audience response. Skyshifter ^talk 17:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Pauline?

Should Pauline be mentioned in the cast section? I mean, she DOES make a cameo, right? Visokor (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

She's part of the movie, so there's no reason not to. GamerAndWriter (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No. She has absolutely no role in the film other than being an Easter Egg. Her voice actor also isn't known. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2023

Change the "Yoshi (species)" link to just "Yoshi" at the end. It is confirmed that the Yoshi egg in the post-credits scene belongs to the mainstream Yoshi. SnitchyMarioGlitchy3 (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Jamietw (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Box office records unsourced

@Iacowriter: you can not add content like this without having a source, preferably in the Box office section. Removing fact tags shows that you are aware that the statement needs a source but refuse to provide it. I would recommend you read WP:CITE before editing further. Mike Allen 15:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Spike

Just thought I'd clarify this here, seeing how my correction got reverted and I don't want to start an edit war. Check here and pause at 1:35 to see proof that the Spike listed on the page is not the right one. There is an emblem right under Sebastian's portrait that is clearly depicting the antagonist from Wrecking Crew (here's what he looks like). Now it's possible that the recurring Mario enemy also known as "Spike" could make an appearance in the movie, but that enemy looks nothing like the foreman, nor the emblem from the announcement trailer. Hope this clears everything up! ---The Pastrami-Eating Bulldog 02:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

He was described as Mario and Luigi's boss in this source which fits more the description of the character from Wrecking Crew than the other Mario enemy, this should be clear enough -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound 12:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, But where's Wario & Waluigi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.254.15.139 (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It has been announced that Charles Martinet (who not only voices Mario in his game counterparts, but also Wario and Waluigi) would play multiple characters within the film as a sort of cameo. It wouldn't be surprising if these 'multiple characters' are Wario and Waluigi, altough that is yet to be seen. D2Owiki (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

They weren’t, but I’m hoping for them to show up in future instalments. 207.136.88.24 (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2023

Change the critical rating under "Reception" from 57% to 58% to reflect the current Rotten Tomatoes score. The number of critics should also be increased to 229 from 227. 68.40.44.173 (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done -- ZooBlazer^talk 06:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Country in infobox may be United States and Japan instead of United States only

Currently, the country in the infobox is "United States". However the reference given says that the movie is from a "Shigeru Miyamoto/Chris Meledandri Productions". On imdb, the country for the movie is United States and Japan: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt6718170/ 2001:861:39C4:2340:3E52:9E4B:AF6C:EE22 (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

We go by what reliable sources say the film is, not us assuming just because a production company is based in a certain country. No reliable source has been produced that confirms this is an American and Japanese film. IMDb is never used as a reliable source. See WP:IMDB for more details. Thank you. Mike Allen 22:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the link on reliable sources, that is very useful. Here is another link that mentions Japan and United States:

https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Super-Mario-Bros-Movie-The-(2022)

I don't know if it is a reliable source or not. At least they claim in the section about us: "Instead of trawling the web, we get our information from the source".

https://www.the-numbers.com/about-us 2001:861:39C4:2340:3E52:9E4B:AF6C:EE22 (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The Numbers criteria is to list the production countries (or they just copy from IMDb), which is not the same as Wikipedia's. The BFI list it as a "USA" film also. Mike Allen 17:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is also a review from a member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association listing it as "United States/Japan", which might be relevant. 2001:861:39C4:2340:3E52:9E4B:AF6C:EE22 (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose merging Peaches (Jack Black song) into The Super Mario Bros. Movie. The information "Peaches" covers is already covered in the main article, making it redundant. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I would say wait for a month or two until the situation becomes clear. Perhaps it would become a persistent internet meme.

By the way, I believe should that article be merged, it should be merged into The Super Mario Bros. Movie (soundtrack) instead. MilkyDefer 14:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Usually it's the other way around - merge it until evidence of notability arises. Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCRYSTAL. If the song becomes enough of an internet meme to warrant a separate article then one can be created. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd merge for now - it's not currently notable - while being open to spinning it back out over time. Right now the sourcing is weak. But if it charts on any of the WP:GOODCHARTS and it's better sourcing, sure. Sergecross73 msg me 15:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I’d prefer to wait a week to see if it charts and then discuss merging. And if it is merged, I agree that it should be with the soundtrack page not the film page. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Again, it's the other way around. If there's no proof of notability, we merge now, and break out later when it is notable. Not the other way around. Sergecross73 msg me 22:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I‘d also say this is the best course of action. It is more relevant for the soundtrack‘s page then the film‘s page. And should it chart, an own article will be created again anyways. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep it up until Tuesday, April 18th at the earliest. We ought to know whether it reaches the Billboard Hot 100 or Bubbling Under Hot 100, and/or other notable international charts—plus, not only could it use some extensions, (some of which I will contribute) but numerous notable websites are covering this, some that have been added and some that haven't. I was planning on listing them, but literally as I was typing this, I reloaded the Peaches page and it's twice as big now. With the 5.6 million views the music video has amassed in just three days, (imagine how many it'll have by Friday) as well as the Illumination and IGN videos well on their way to surpassing 1 million views, AND there is still hype for the movie that may even have a 2-or-3-week momentum...yeah, it's definitely worth at least waiting until the 18th. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The pages should be merged. Sure “Peaches” is a song cover, but it didn’t desire its own page. BumAMOGUS (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely no way in hell should these two articles be merged, they're their own sets of media and standalone even if they are used simultaneously! 2405:6E00:493:DEC9:9C4F:8796:47EF:B0D0 (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, at the time it was suggested it made sense, but the pague has developed beyond a stub. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 18:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - This song has has now received extensive coverage like this, and others already on the page, that is dedicated to the song by itself—not the film, not the other music, just this song. Definitely enough to meet WP:GNG. I had to go back to see what it looked like at the time of the merge proposal (Special:PermaLink/1149006064) to see how this would make sense, but yes, it seemed more logical then. In the past few days, extensive coverage has since made this merge proposal moot. -2pou (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Article has since been expanded and notability is now met. It has enough to stand on its own. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Even if it doesn't chart, the current state of the article shows notability due to the inclusion of secondary, reliable sources that give significant coverage to the song. It also has enough content to be separated from the soundtrack article. Skyshifter ^talk 23:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:HEY! See the diff here. :3 F4U (they/it) 22:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I probably would have supported the merger when it was first proposed, but now I think that the article meets WP:GNG. -- ZooBlazer^talk 22:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The song has received significant coverage by itself, including coverage related to a music video that is not part of the film. Memories of (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could we have a section about the "reception" before the release?

Sorry, I'm not a native speaker and couldn't come up with a better fitting word than "reception".

Either way, what I'm talking about is that before the movie came out, there were already many opinions, articles and video reactions (i.e. trailer reactions) on it. Everybody who's in the fanbase knows that people were sceptical of the result, considering earlier Mario movie adaptations but also Chris Pratt's performance and the art style in this new movie when the early trailers started coming out.

I think it'd be worthy having a section about these early impressions if we can find reliable sources that confirm this. Blokbroek (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Pre-release reactions are already interspersed throughout the article. I don't think there's much more to add, but if you have any specific proposals, feel free to make them here. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Petition to restore this to the article lead, it was removed mid-march.

It is the franchise's third film adaptation, following the Japanese anime film Super Mario Bros.: The Great Mission to Rescue Princess Peach! (1986) and the live-action film Super Mario Bros. (1993). 2601:5CE:4380:3A0:2028:688F:9A84:5009 (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

No. The anime has nothing to do with this movie and isn't mentioned in the article. The live-action film is mentioned in the second paragraph of the lede. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 01:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

So the live action film does? How? 2601:5CE:4380:3A0:5C08:1394:8481:C18D (talk) 06:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Why are the movie articles saying “surveyed” by CinemaScore instead of “polled” by CinemaScore like they used to say?

I’ve been noticing that ever since the beginning of 2023 when M3GAN came out in theaters that articles for every movie that’s been released since then has said “surveyed by CinemaScore” instead of “polled by CinemaScore.” I really don’t get this change. I personally prefer them saying “polled by CinemaScore.” Can we please keep them that way? It just sounds nicer to me. A24Aficionado88 (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

They're synonymous. It's not a big deal. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 13:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Audience Reception in Lead

Per my edit summary, [5]. I was mistaken about the reception in Last Jedi, however, one might argue that audience reception should be included there per WP:BALANCE. Nevertheless, given the amount of coverage the disparity has garnered (for this movie in particular), some mention of it seems appropriate for inclusion in the lead. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Kcmastrpc, do not restore disputed content before obtaining consensus, WP:ONUS, especially when you're actively topic-banned for edit warring. That said, what distinguishes TLJ from this film is that TLJ's audience reception was disputed; scientific polling methods showed a positive reception, while review aggregators like RT and IMDb (which are much more prone to review bombing) showed a more negative reception. That's not the case here; scientific polling and aggregators agree that the audience reception was positive. Therefore, I'd support including a brief mention of it in the lead. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

For posterity's sake, I would like to add that TLJ's audience reception was also in regards to strongly-held fan theories and fans believing the film as being too progressive. Disparity itself, unless in very extreme instances, does not and should not warrant inclusion. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 15:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Maxxhiato, so for the sake of achieving a clear consensus, would you support including it in the lead in this case? Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I suppose I should have clarified my stance better. I am opposed to the inclusion of it as its own section, which has been brought up numerous times. I do believe there is a case to be made that it has achieved some sense of significance to warrant only a brief mention, but nothing more. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 16:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

My view exactly. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Should an Audience Score be added to the Reception section?

I'm asking because they seems to have a lot more consistent rating and is more sharp on researching what's good and bad about the movie. For example, the critic scores on Rotten Tomatoes were polarized, but it has 98% on Audience score. So does Metacritic. 139.0.158.183 (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

No. User reviews and audience score are considered WP:UGC and are completely unreliable. If reliable sources make note of the contrasting scores then that can be mentioned ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

its not user generated content its a poll, and in my experience everyone i've talked to has absolutely loved the movie. Plus i think the vox populi should be trusted over the voice of a few who, by the way, are notorious for having less than agreeable opinions.

Caucasianhamburger (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Caucasianhamburger: Read WP:UGC please. It specifically says "Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users are not." ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 11:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

after reading this i asked everyone in the room that i'm in what they thought of the Mario movie, everyone who had seen it had a positive opinion of it. I really think that we should have the popular opinion as the opinions of the critics are not what the public thinks. It would be really sad if this page made it seem like everyone thought that the movie was totally mediocre.

Caucasianhamburger (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Caucasianhamburger: What everyone in your room thinks is irrelevant and also WP:OR. Also, the issue with these is something called review bombing. Because they aren't regulated there can be a bunch of people who are trying to skew the ratings. Wikipedia only covers what reliable sources say. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

i was more using the room thing as an example of the general public opinion of the movie and had no intent to use it as an actual source, is there some sort of polling that could be used as a reliable source?

Caucasianhamburger (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

In addition to Blaze's comment, there is a mention from Deadline that notes the audience reception. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 18:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Why is the RT audience score important?

Of all the movie articles I've read on Wikipedia, why special privilege does this one have that it deserves to have its RT audience score mentioned? Not even the article on The Last Jedi notes its critic/audience discrepancy. I don't understand. I mean, I'm pretty sure the audience score is a biased source, considering what it mostly consists of... Colonel Knight Rider (talk) 07:10, 21 April 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)

"Leak"

i have been cordially invited to discuss this part of the article, as the term leak is incorrect and terms like spreading and illegal distribution are better ways of describing the film’s unauthorized posting to twitter. so tell me, what’s a better term for this section that isn’t leak? -flyless kyle, 5-10-23 (EST) Flyless Kyle (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I suggested you open a discussion but I see you have not actually written anything about why it is "incorrect", why it should be changed, why it is wrong for reliable sources to use it, what the alternatives are for it and why they are "better" since you keep removing the word yourself. The reasons should be based on clarity, rationality and constructiveness... ภץאคгöร 11:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2023

Add category Category:Action comedy films per [6] LEETXEET (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 23:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Here is the source https://www.allmovie.com/movie/the-super-mario-bros-movie-vm12139436894 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LEETXEET (talk • contribs) 16:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2023

In the "Release" section, the "Leak" part is not a leak, It was just someone who uploaded an HDCAM rip of the movie. But, On Thursday, May 11th, the website pressplay.top uploaded a leaked HD Webrip of the movie, 5 days before the official release date, which is May 16th. The leaker of this WebRip is unknown. MpGamer2034 (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 16:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2023

The movie is now the 4th highest grossing animated movie of all time HeHEhaw070 (talk) 01:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Heart ^(talk) 01:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Audience reception from Rotten Tomatoes

I recently removed this from the entire article. Recent discussions here and here do not have the necessary consensus to override WP:UGC and MOS:FILMAUDIENCE. Please read both guidelines carefully and realize that user ratings are largely dismissed on Wikipedia as unreliable, even when multiple secondary sources cite innocent observations about them. We need more than that. We need secondary analysis that goes beyond a mere observation and delves into the importance of the audience rating vs. the critics rating.

For example, at Star Wars: The Last Jedi, an exception was made because of all the coverage surrounding how they were gamed and manipulated. That resulted in a wide RFC discussion in order to justify inclusion. That is not the case here until someone brings the necessary sources to the table showing something more than a mere observation. That would be a start. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Neither of those discussions went to RFC because the coverage, up until now, has gone unchallenged. As stated in the undo of your change, RS have covered this topic broadly, WP:IDONTLIKEIT aside, there are more than enough sources and weight in the coverage to include the audience reception from Rotten Tomatoes. Here are a couple of cited sources that are dedicated completely to the topic:

• https://www.thegamer.com/mario-bros-movie-audience-score-bad-reviews/
• https://bgr.com/entertainment/the-super-mario-bros-movie-debuts-with-a-near-perfect-audience-score-on-rotten-tomatoes/

Kcmastrpc (talk) 10:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Kcmastrpc: The change is the addition of the coverage to the article, not the removal. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Sources often mention audience scores for a vast number of films, but these are mere observations that do not circumvent how we treat them. Once challenged, the onus for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those who support it, not the other way around. In addition to the challenge, the guidelines I listed explain that user ratings are not generally permitted, placing the ball further into your court. It may be that consensus exists, but that has yet to be shown. If you wish to expand the discussion to an RfC, you are certainly welcome to, but until then, the content stays out per the policy I just cited.

I see you've recently been blocked for edit warring, so I'll give you a chance to revert your revert and seek consensus through discussion, which is expected at this stage. Continuing to disrupt the article through back-and-forth reverts is not in your best interest. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I would recommend calling an RFC if you feel the existing consensus is not to your satisfaction and letting the stable version stand per WP:STATUSQUO. I’m aware that is an essay, however, I’m not opposed to adding inline tags in the meantime. I’m not OK with removing content that is well supported by WP:RS, has been discussed already, and has implied consensus at this point. Those RS are obviously more than simply a passing mention. In addition, I’ve modified the prose by removing the actual percentage because that’s likely outside the policy boundaries of MOS:FILMAUDIENCE. I would also warn that you should reconsider before disrupting the article further as well. I’m not going to revert again, but it’s only a matter of time until someone else reintroduces it, so I’d again recommend following the advice offered in WP:STATUSQUO and call for an RFC if you feel so strongly about the issue. Kcmastrpc (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

STATUSQUO, as you've noted, is simply an essay without any weight. WP:ONUS is policy, and it clearly states that the responsibility for demonstrating consensus is on the supporting party. In addition, we have two guidelines that already have wide support from the community that user ratings are not reliable for a variety of reasons.

Then there are the discussions that have occurred so far, which have had very little participation. But of those who participated, more editors are in opposition vs. the number who are in support. Throast, MikeAllen, Blushmallorn, Wikibenboy94 with this edit, Blaze Wolf with this edit and myself are all opposed. Maxxhiato is in the middle, only supporting a brief mention, but that needs further clarification. Only Skyshifter and yourself have shown any real support thus far. Where is this "implied consensus" or "existing consensus" you speak of? I'm not seeing it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I may have clarified and it got lost in the talk page. Initially, I was quite opposed because there hadn't even been much coverage on the audience in the first place. However, this sentence:

"In contrast, the audience response was significantly more positive; the film garnered a "near-perfect" audience score on Rotten Tomatoes" has considerable weight regarding the sources.

This is, at most, what I think is needed. A section, as is the case in TLJ and Captain Marvel, is not needed in any capacity. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Maxxhiato: Thanks for the clarification. You can look at just about any film where the RT audience score, an unreliable metric by Wikipedia's standards, shows a considerable disparity to the critics' score and find a trove of sources commenting on that disparity. The question remains if a sheer number of comments trumps the viewpoint that this is fuss over an unreliable metric. If there was some serious, scholarly research on the numbers and not just random commentary from casual observers who looked at a website, I'd be more prone to include it. We also have to take into consideration the thousands of sources published on the film that fail to mention the disparity. 5, 10, or even dozens of sources that mention it would still pale in comparison to those that don't. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The unreliability of it does give me mixed feelings in that I see a lot of preaching to the choir. That is, should we even be remotely surprised that fans liked the movie? However, I also don't see it as reporting on the weight of the actual reviews themselves and more of it as "despite bad reviews from critics, this has a near-perfect score on RT from the audience." Any commentary on what these reviews means should be not included, and that's not even on the table. Still, the BBC, CNBC, and Yahoo! aren't exactly small sources.

At the end of the day, you are right in that a lot of articles on almost any major movie would mention the audience score, and I don't want this article to open the door for that when people start saying "but the Mario movie did it,' when its only defense is that it was "near-perfect." This goes double when people already try to cite TLJ as a reason for including audience scores without knowing why it has it.

Ultimately, I am fine with it being removed and can see the reasoning behind why. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Well said, and I agree with an earlier comment that this probably isn't a hill worth dying on. Still, we have guidelines in place that discourage any mention of audience feedback based on user-generated ratings. We also know that while a source can be reliable in one regard, it may be unreliable in another. Seems like the case here where some are venturing outside the realm of what they are qualified to assess. Guess we'll see how the rest of the discussion pans out. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

By the way, if you are referring to WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, well that is the weakest form of consensus, and it goes out the window as soon as an edit is "disputed or reverted". --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there really widespread significant coverage of the audience scores being so dramatically different than the critics? In any case we have both IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes in the external links. That's sufficient enough for readers to view the audience scores side by side of the critic scores. Mike Allen 01:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

In a previous discussion, I actually argued in support of a brief mention, but I don't feel strongly either way. As you note, the disparity is not that great (almost 60% of critics gave a positive review according to RT). There's almost certainly going to be some degree of positive review bombing, so the true numbers are probably even closer. In conclusion, it doesn't seem as big a deal as zealous fans on social media (and to some extent the media) had made it out to be when the film was first released. I'd be totally fine removing the RT audience score altogether. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 09:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

In addition, we also have CinemaScore and PostTrak cited in the article for audience reception; both are considered reliable assessments. There's no need to bring in an unreliable assessment, especially when reliable data already communicates the same thing. Kcmastrpc, it appears there is consensus against, or at the very least, no consensus. Your best bet to override guidelines with an exception is to get it through an RfC. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Reliable polls totally obviate the need for unreliable UGC, regardless of whether or not it's been covered by secondary sources. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 10:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

If there is no consensus then policy is that it remains. In any case, the conversation is ongoing, so let’s see what develops.

I would note that the policies you’ve cited are in reference to using RT as a RS for quoting audience scores directly, which no one has proposed doing. The article is using multiple, reliable, secondary sources to highlight the disparity which is perfectly acceptable IMO.

As I mentioned, let’s see how the discussion unfolds. Cheers. Kcmastrpc (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

MOS:FILMAUDIENCE is not strictly applied to RT as a source only. If secondary sources merely observe a perceived disparity, all they're doing is use unreliable UGC as basis for their commentary. These types of secondary sources are obviously supposed to be covered by MOS:FILMAUDIENCE as well. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Entire articles have been written on the topic, so where is the bar for “mere observation”? Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree with Throast in that regard. An observation about the scores is just an observation based on unreliable data. We are able to scrutinize sources based on their weight and expertise, which is why VNOT and WP:DUE exist. And you are wrong about how "No consensus" is interpreted here. Per ONUS, the only way it gets in is with consensus; "no consensus" and "consensus against" both result in exclusion.

"Entire articles have been written on the topic" – The length of the observation doesn't change anything. In TheGamer source you provided, the author makes the observation and opines why that may be the case, but here's the problem. The opinion, and others like it, ignore what we already have from reliable polling methods, failing to see the forest for the trees. Unreliable data has no home on Wikipedia unless it causes a significant controversy, in which case we discuss the controversy. That's what separated articles like Last Jedi from the pack. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

A lot of the observation, to me, boils down to "fans liked the movie." Well, of course they did. They're fans. Articles trying to explain why fans like the movie are kind of stating the obvious. However, the relatively high score has been noted. And that's where it should end, really.

This isn't a hill I'm really willing to die on. If someone else wants it, they can have it. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:26, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NOCON the common outcome is retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.

At this point though, it's pretty clear there is no consensus. I'm going to let you decide on how to proceed since you decided to undo my revert after roughly 24 hours, I already said I wasn't going to revert again. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there no consensus? It seems to me that there is a firm "no" on reintroducing the material at the moment. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 12:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

You stated in a reply above, ""In contrast, the audience response was significantly more positive; the film garnered a "near-perfect" audience score on Rotten Tomatoes" has considerable weight regarding the sources.". This is what was dropped, and what is being argued here. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

"Per WP:NOCON..." – Look closely at the last part: "as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". The proposal or bold edit is the addition of challenged material, not the removal of it. I have participated in long drowned-out discussions at the talk pages of WP:V and WP:CON, and I can assure you that a majority agree that, in terms of removal, NOCON covers longstanding material that had clear consensus prior to its removal. The "consensus for" was never clear (and still isn't) as we've demonstrated. It's a moot point anyway considering we are presently at "consensus against" as noted by Maxxhiato. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Side note: Let's not detract from the main issue at hand with this sidebar. Feel free to discuss further at my talk page or at one of the policy talk pages if you wish to hash that out further. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

As one of the people who defended the addition of audience reception, this is sad to see, but I'll respect the consensus. Skyshifter ^talk 10:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

After combing through quite a few sources that have reported the audience score, I'm beginning to come around to the fact that unreliable or not, it has become a part of the mainstream dialogue on the subject at this point. WP:DUE would override any guidelines we have concerns about, and so far in this discussion, that's how the consensus is panning out as well. I have refrained from adding my opinion to the discussion thus far in an effort to let others chime in without any influence. My suggestion would be for the participants here to hold off as well (for now) on weighing in to let the discussion there unfold a bit further. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Kcmastrpc and Skyshifter: Of course there's no rush here, but barring any swing in the feedback that discussion is getting, it would appear that restoring at least some of the material I removed would be justified. Further discussion might be needed before inclusion in the lead, but a brief 1-sentence mention in the body (without the score) like we had before may end up being an acceptable workaround. I'll circle back in the next few days with a few sources I came across, which I think may end up being better citations than some of the ones we had before. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I was going to bring up WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY when I had some free time since the remaining audience scores from CinemaScore and PostTrack are in the Reception section; however, to your point, we should probably cite sources that call out the difference (without including anything about the score on RT). Thank you for taking the time to research and for your consideration. Cheers! Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

In any case, we should discard any source that concludes that the audience reception was significantly more positive based on the RT audience score alone. That's just flawed analysis based on unreliable data. What we could include is something to the tune of, The Rotten Tomatoes audience score was significantly higher than the critic score. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 15:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I haven't had much time to revisit this, but here are some of the solid sources I came across:

• BYU professor contributes character design to 'The Super Mario Bros. Movie' – The Daily Universe
• 'The Super Mario Bros. Movie' Shows Movie Critics Don’t Get Video Games, But TV Critics Do – Forbes

I would steer clear of sources like TheGamer and focus instead on ones like these that highly specialize in film review or provide scholarly analysis (such as the BYU source). Maybe we should cite these two in addition to BBC source we had previously?

BTW, at this time, I can only support adding a brief one-liner back into the article body. Given the additional feedback we've seen at that discussion, opinions now seem to be more split over its inclusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Support reinclusion of a one-line phrase about audience reception with these sources. Skyshifter ^talk 23:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The Forbes article is not a solid source, WP:FORBESCONtributors are generally unreliable. The Daily Universe appears to be a student newspaper; don't know how diligent their editorial board is (if they even have one). Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 11:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis, Throast. For the BYU source, the content focuses on a professor's analysis, and quotes are taken directly from that professor. The author should hold little weight over those comments. Objectively, this appears to be more reliable than a your run-of-the-mill video game blogger (unfortunately, a lot of the sources I came across fell into that realm).

As for FORBESCON, one of the exceptions is that the contributor is a subject matter expert, "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". His reviews have appeared many times on Rotten Tomatoes, mainly as a TV critic but also for some films. He also has quite a few video game reviews on Metacritic, so he's knowledgeable on the subject. I would generally think his background qualifies as an exception. My 2¢. I came across more, but I forgot to bookmark them. If I get time, I'll try to dig them up. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

...and just a quick note. Assuming The Universe (student newspaper) is accurate, the editorial board consists of university professors, professional staff, as well as local professionals. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I see. As for Forbes, I'd still be opposed to include it in this context because the author is—very openly so—heavily biased toward the film. Quotes like, I’m not sure anyone over 50 should be reviewing this movie at all or TV critics on the whole have a better sense of these things than movie critics trying to analyze video game adaptations, and him calling older movie critics more pretentious, are some examples. I guess I'd prefer sources that try to analyze these disparities more objectively, perhaps a more data-driven approach as opposed to personal opinion.

I guess the Universe article is fine for supporting the mere observation that the RT audience score is significantly higher. But then again, as we've established above, that score is an unreliable metric. I'm still not convinced that we should include it for that reason, regardless of how much it's been covered. The audience polls that are already included essentially communicate the same thing. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was my viewpoint as well in the beginning. As I began to search through what appear to be fairly reliable sources, there were a significant amount discussing the disparity. With solid sources and a carefully-worded statement, I think we can make an exception here like we did at Last Jedi and Captain Marvel, assuming we reach some kind of agreement over sourcing. Perhaps the next step is to list a dozen or so and see if any qualify. Hopefully I'll find time soon to circle back. Kcmastrpc and Skyshifter, if you have any additional sources not already listed above you'd like to share, please do. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The statement, once we get to that, could even be something as simple as, "Film critics and industry insiders noted that there was a significant disparity in the scores on Rotten Tomatoes between audiences and professional critics." I agree that we should avoid a statement that treats RT audience scores as reliable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It's important to add that audience scores for Last Jedi and Captain Marvel were only included because they were reportedly heavily manipulated. This doesn't seem to be the case here, or at least RS haven't noted it. The mere observation of the disparity, without any further context, is useless for Wikipedia's purposes because we deem RT audience scores unreliable. By merely mentioning the audience score without noting its flaws, RS are giving it credence, which they shouldn't, and we shouldn't adopt that undeserved credence. An RT or IMDb audience score becomes notable for Wikipedia's purposes only if it is the subject of a broader issue so to speak, as was the case for Last Jedi and Captain Marvel. I see roughly the same sentiment echoed in the WT:FILM discussion you linked above. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 21:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"audience scores...were only included because they were reportedly heavily manipulated"

Just a quick point of clarification... Many, like myself, argued many times over that the scores were unreliable and easily gamed, but early conversations went beyond user-generated concerns, because at the time of the first RfC in December 2017, very little had been confirmed on the score manipulation aspect; it was still unfolding. Inclusion first happened over the simple fact that a sheer number of reliable sources were covering audience reception, particularly fan reception, and their coverage went beyond just a mere observation of RT audience ratings.

Of course, this is a different time involving a different situation. Even if the reliable sources in question mention RT user scores, we already know that CinemaScore and PostTrak – two reliable audience metrics – show the same thing. So the focus shouldn't be on whether or not audiences liked the film; clearly they did. This is about whether or not the divide between critics and audiences is noteworthy, as quite a few are writing about it. WP:DUE is a tough argument to overcome as soon as one side shows strong reliable sourcing.

Maybe now is a good time to pause and re-evaluate the sources, including anything new brought to the table. In the meantime, those who wish to weigh in at that WT:FILM discussion should probably do so. I'd only recommend keeping your response generalized in a way that could apply to any film article, not just this one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I see we're starting to go in circles. This is about whether or not the divide between critics and audiences is noteworthy, as quite a few are writing about it. Because we deem the RT audience score unreliable, it cannot be used as a metric for audience reception. To even assume that there was a divide in the real world based on the RT score is therefore wrong, even if such flawed analysis is done by generally reliable publications. It really is just a matter of principle: RT audience scores are bad, which is why we only include them here in highly limited contexts. We're already communicating that the audience response to this film was significantly better via reliable polls. Let's not sprinkle bad data on top.

I don't know how these two sides are reconcilable. If that really was the outcome of the Last Jedi RfC, I strongly disagree with it. If something—anything—is reported en-masse, it does not automatically get a free pass for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even RS do bad journalism at times. Noting a disparity in the RT scores without contextualizing it is an example of bad journalism, and the sheer mass of it does not somehow outweigh that fact. I think I've made my point; will hold off from commenting here until there are new proposals/sources. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 10:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

"I see we're starting to go in circles." – Quite possibly and apologies if that's the case. Mainly just wanted to provide a link to Last Jedi's first RfC with some additional insight, since it was brought up. Can't really disagree with much of what you're saying. I'm just working through the process objectively trying to keep an open mind. I'm not committed to inclusion, nor do I think anything gets a "free pass" for simply existing in reliable sources. However, the more prevalent a viewpoint becomes in mainstream sources, the harder it becomes to ignore and deny inclusion. Wikipedia is more concerned about balance and fair representation of what sources say than it is about right vs. wrong, truth vs. false. Even minority viewpoints have a place on Wikipedia, albeit with lesser prominence/weight than more significant viewpoints. In-text attribution can also be used as an alternative way to present controversial information without claiming it as fact in Wikipedia voice. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I think this issue differs from other "viewpoints" that DUE is concerned with in that the underlying data is UGC, which we deem flat-out unreliable. I do see why it's a complicated issue. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)