Submitting a suggested script to Sony for the animated movie

[DaKardii]

Hi! I'm currently in the process of typing a script to submit to Sony and Nintendo so I can try to influence how the upcoming Super Mario Bros. animated film, which is due to be released in 2017, turns out. It is HEAVILY based off the 1991 "fantasy script," so I put down Tom S. Parker and Jim Jennewein's names at the beginning of my script so that they receive credit. While the overall story of my script is the same as the 1991 script, there are many differences. Here's a list:


-The year of the flashback is EXPLICITLY stated as 1965, rather than "20 years ago."

-The year of the present day is EXPLICITLY stated as 1985, rather than "present day."

-Hildy is renamed Daisy.

-The curse words are replaced with less offensive terms. For example, when Farley calls Mario a "shrimp," he calls him a "jumbo shrimp" instead of a "greaseball shrimp."

-While disguised as a human, Koopa calls himself "Cooper."

-Beedleman is replaced by Kamek.

-Mugger is a Boom-Boom instead of a giant Koopa Troopa.

-Koopa's first name (Bowser) is actually mentioned.

-Daisy and Peach are no longer combined into one character. Peach is introduced as "Toadstool," Woltan's daughter who wears Han Solo-esque clothing, is a master at using items (the Fire Flower and the Starman are used in addition to the Super Leaf), and has magical powers herself. She joins Mario, Luigi, and Toad on their quest. At first, she is hostile to Mario because of his anger toward Luigi. She also seems to be bitter and resentful herself. After Luigi and Toad are shoved into the pit, Peach and Mario begin to bond as they reveal to each other their backstories in the forest. It is revealed that Mario grew up poor, but he had a talent for football in high school despite his height. In fact, he was SO good that he was sought out by many colleges. But on the eve of his decision, his parents were killed in a car accident. He had to abandon his hopes and dreams because Luigi, who was 10 years old at the time, could not be raised by any other relatives, so Mario had to raise him and inherit his father's plumbing business. This, combined with his girlfriend, Brenda's abandonment of him, is what caused him to be so bitter and angry, especially to Luigi. Peach's backstory is that her mother died when she was a baby, and she had to be raised by her father. Her father is the leader of the resistance against Koopa's tyranny, so he spent little time with his daughter. And when he did, he was stern, treated her more like a soldier than a daughter, and had her focus more on serving the resistance and learning magic than actually being a kid. She had no siblings or companions to relate to. And the reason she initially resented Mario was because he was ungrateful for what he had. The two then fall in love and are about to kiss, only to be interrupted by Woltan. After Woltan is zapped to ashes, a grieving Peach, who thinks Woltan died, reveals her true identity and name to Mario. She says that Daisy's in fact NOT the lost princess. Daisy's father was Lord Sarasa, a close friend of Woltan who volunteered to abandon his daughter in Brooklyn with the locket in order to to trick Koopa into thinking the baby was in fact Peach. Koopa didn't know the baby's name, so he thought Daisy was the name of the princess when he found out what the baby was named. Lord Sarasa is identical to the man who dies in the opening scene. Upon this revelation, Mario is furious, for he believes Peach and Woltan's decision to keep her identity secret has led to Daisy's kidnapping on false pretenses, and consequently to Luigi's death. He leaves Peach to grieve as he goes into the fake castle and is captured. Peach and Mario reconcile when she helps Luigi and Toad defeat the guards holding Mario (using a Starman in the process), and she goes into the real castle disguised as a knight along with Mario and Luigi. When they find Daisy, it is Peach who reminds Luigi to use the Mushroom Powder (Luigi uses the Mushroom Powder on Daisy earlier than in the 1991 draft). When the four try to escape and are caught by Koopa (instead of Mugger), she reveals her true identity and offers to willingly marry Koopa if he let Mario, Luigi, and Daisy go, but not before telling him that Mario will always be the one she truly loves. Koopa accepts her offer, and then throws Mario, Luigi, and Daisy into the dungeon immediately after Peach is escorted away. In the end, Mario, Luigi, and Daisy escape with Toad's help, rescue Peach, defeat Koopa, and save the day. Peach and Daisy are given medals by Woltan, in addition to Mario, Luigi, and Toad. Peach becomes Mario's girlfriend, and the two share a passionate kiss, after Peach shoos away the hag.

-Junior is replaced by Yoshi. In addition to his already written scenes, he also unexpectedly reappears (as an adult and with wings), saves Mario and Peach from certain death after they nearly fall into the lava after defeating Koopa. He is subsequently given a medal by Woltan (and can speak full English at the end, too.)

-Razor fish are replaced by Cheep-Cheeps (which have teeth in this movie).

-Mugger is killed during the escape from the castle. He accidentally falls into a lava pit.

-The final battle is much longer and epic. Mario has Fire Power after given a Fire Flower from Peach's bridal bouquet. Before the battle begins, Koopa says that he sees inside Mario's heart and senses darkness within. He makes a last ditch attempt to avoid a battle by transforming himself into a clone of Brenda and seducing Mario, promising to restore his life to the way he wanted it to be prior to his parents' deaths. Mario rejects this temptation, knowing it won't bring him any happiness. Mario and Koopa engage in a firefight that you would swear came straight out of Avatar: The Last Airbender. Mario loses his firepower when he is uppercut off the bridge. He tricks Koopa into growing too big like in the 1991 draft, but instead of falling straight into the lava when he falls through the bridge, which is made of wood, snaps in half and the two halves fall against the ledges they are attached to. Mario grabs on close to the top, Koopa grabs on close to the bottom of the half (dangerously close to the lava). Koopa quickly climbs back up and claws Mario's leg in an attempt to throw him into the lava. He accidentally pulls Mario and Peach (who had just grabbed Mario's hand) down on top of him and loses his grip. Koopa is never seen again (we never see him land in the lava, paving the way for a possible sequel), while Yoshi saves Mario and Peach. Koopa's minions then run away as Kamek vows that the Koopa Troop will get its revenge one day.

-The closing scene is completely rewritten. It shows Luigi and Daisy getting married. Mario toasts the bride and groom, and says that he doesn't have time for love. Just then, Peach, Toad, Yoshi, Woltan, and Woltan's wife walk in, and Mario shouts, "Just Joking!!!" and laughs hysterically.

-Some scenes are extended to add dialogue that would make it more interesting or complete.

-The characters' designs are the same as in the games they debuted in, except the ones that have never changed since their debuts (those enemies have the same design as in the DIC cartoons).


So, what do you think? And who should I recommend to be cast? And should it be 2-D or 3-D animated?

[ultimateemail5000]

This is just me but I personally do not want any part of the 90's movie to be linked in any way shape or form with the new animated movie. We're in the year 2015, time for a fresh new start with a Mario movie.

[DaKardii]

This is just me but I personally do not want any part of the 90's movie to be linked in any way shape or form with the new animated movie. We're in the year 2015, time for a fresh new start with a Mario movie.

I know there are SOME similarities between the '93 movie and the '91 fantasy script. But overall, they have little in common, especially after the changes I listed.
Plus, the 1993 film actually SHOULD be looked at by Sony so it can figure out what does and doesn't work. They can then avoid making the mistakes that resulted in the '93 movie failing at the box office and being critically panned, and also take advantage of the aspects of the '93 movie that made audiences like it.

[Serum]

This is just me but I personally do not want any part of the 90's movie to be linked in any way shape or form with the new animated movie. We're in the year 2015, time for a fresh new start with a Mario movie.

I agree with the first part.

[ultimateemail5000]

That's the thing. Everyone has seen it they know it exists, you can honestly look at the poster and go "that's not how a Mario movie is done" and that's that.

I'm sure Avi Arad will hopefully know what to do, who to hire, etc. Ive said it before I just don't want them to dumb this down as bad as the newish Pac-man series.

And yes I do still like the movie its a great film, I just don't want to see the same thing happen again. Over 20 years later.

[DaKardii]

That's the thing. Everyone has seen it they know it exists, you can honestly look at the poster and go "that's not how a Mario movie is done" and that's that.

I'm sure Avi Arad will hopefully know what to do, who to hire, etc. Ive said it before I just don't want them to dumb this down as bad as the newish Pac-man series.

And yes I do still like the movie its a great film, I just don't want to see the same thing happen again. Over 20 years later.

I just looked up "Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures," and Avi Arad did indeed help develop it. However, he wasn't the director of the series, he only helped write 10 of the 24 episodes, and was only one of FIVE executive producers for that show. So the amount of influence he actually had on the show is easily debatable. And also remember that this is the guy who was an executive producer for X-Men, Spider Man, X-Men 2, Iron Man, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. So he has good films on his record.

In addition, there are two people who I'm going to ask Arad, Sony, and Nintendo to try to get on the project. The first guy is someone who you are very familiar with, the other is someone you may not have heard from in a VERY long time: Stephen Spielberg and Don Bluth. Here's my reasoning. Back in the '80s, Don Bluth was an animation TITAN. His films such as "The Secret of NIMH," "An American Tail," "The Land Before Time," and "All Dogs Go to Heaven" were PHENOMENALLY successful. So successful, that "An American Tail" and "The Land Before Time" actually grossed higher than the highest grossing movies DISNEY made in the years they were released (1986 and 1988, respectively). And Stephen Spielberg worked as a collaborator to develop BOTH of those films. How did Bluth become this successful? In addition to getting Spielberg to collaborate with him, he also managed to take a HUGE chunk of veteran Disney animators away from Disney and have them work for him. Those animators left because they were fed up with Disney's obsession with churning out low-quality but still-decent films at a rapid pace in order to make more money. This obsession started after Walt Disney died in 1966, and many animators felt like the company was sacrificing quality for profit, and that Walt Disney would be disgusted with the state his company was in had he still been alive. Bluth, who had been working for Disney as early as 1955, promised that if he had the help, he would be able to churn up animated films at the quality that Walt Disney would have wanted them to be. And the animators believed him and helped it happen. 35 years later, these sentiments are starting to build up at Disney again. Due to the success of "Tangled" and especially "Frozen," Disney has decided to abandon 2-D animation for its movies. Bad move, Disney! What I think Arad should do is convince Bluth to come out of retirement, get 2-D animators who are dissatisfied with Disney's abandonment of 2-D animation to leave Disney and work for him and Arad, and then convince Spielberg to collaborate with Bluth again to help guide them into creating a 2-D animated film that has a quality similar to Disney films such as "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin," and "The Lion King," and could very well end up becoming the greatest non-Disney 2-D animated film since "The Secret of NIMH." Arad wants to make it a 3-or-4-film series, so HOPEFULLY if he does take this path, he manages to KEEP Bluth and Spielberg for the whole series so the sequels don't meet the fate of Bluth's later films (such as the incredibly dumb "A Troll in Central Park") or the sequels to Bluth's early films (such as the abysmally bad "Secret of NIMH 2: Timmy to the Rescue").

What do you think?

[ultimateemail5000]

I just looked up "Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures," and Avi Arad did indeed help develop it. However, he wasn't the director of the series, he only helped write 10 of the 24 episodes, and was only one of FIVE executive producers for that show. So the amount of influence he actually had on the show is easily debatable.

I never said he directed Pac-Man Ghostly Adventures, I said he made it, as in developed it. I also mentioned that Arad will hopefully find the right team to make this movie happen.

And also remember that this is the guy who was an executive producer for X-Men, Spider Man, X-Men 2, Iron Man, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. So he has good films on his record.

I honeslty have come to the conclusion that most comic book movies aren't even that great, they just sell well because Marvel has such a huge fanbase. If the movie is going to be complete garbage, it's still going to make money.

In addition, there are two people who I'm going to ask Arad, Sony, and Nintendo to try to get on the project. The first guy is someone who you are very familiar with, the other is someone you may not have heard from in a VERY long time: Stephen Spielberg and Don Bluth. Here's my reasoning. Back in the '80s, Don Bluth was an animation TITAN. His films such as "The Secret of NIMH," "An American Tail," "The Land Before Time," and "All Dogs Go to Heaven" were PHENOMENALLY successful. So successful, that "An American Tail" and "The Land Before Time" actually grossed higher than the highest grossing movies DISNEY made in the years they were released (1986 and 1988, respectively). And Stephen Spielberg worked as a collaborator to develop BOTH of those films. How did Bluth become this successful? In addition to getting Spielberg to collaborate with him, he also managed to take a HUGE chunk of veteran Disney animators away from Disney and have them work for him. Those animators left because they were fed up with Disney's obsession with churning out low-quality but still-decent films at a rapid pace in order to make more money. This obsession started after Walt Disney died in 1966, and many animators felt like the company was sacrificing quality for profit, and that Walt Disney would be disgusted with the state his company was in had he still been alive. Bluth, who had been working for Disney as early as 1955, promised that if he had the help, he would be able to churn up animated films at the quality that Walt Disney would have wanted them to be. And the animators believed him and helped it happen. 35 years later, these sentiments are starting to build up at Disney again. Due to the success of "Tangled" and especially "Frozen," Disney has decided to abandon 2-D animation for its movies. Bad move, Disney! What I think Arad should do is convince Bluth to come out of retirement, get 2-D animators who are dissatisfied with Disney's abandonment of 2-D animation to leave Disney and work for him and Arad, and then convince Spielberg to collaborate with Bluth again to help guide them into creating a 2-D animated film that has a quality similar to Disney films such as "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin," and "The Lion King," and could very well end up becoming the greatest non-Disney 2-D animated film since "The Secret of NIMH." Arad wants to make it a 3-or-4-film series, so HOPEFULLY if he does take this path, he manages to KEEP Bluth and Spielberg for the whole series so the sequels don't meet the fate of Bluth's later films (such as the incredibly dumb "A Troll in Central Park") or the sequels to Bluth's early films (such as the abysmally bad "Secret of NIMH 2: Timmy to the Rescue").

What do you think?

No.

[Serum]

Actually, I'd watch a Don Bluth animated Mario movie, so long as it stayed true to the 1993 movie's gritty sci-fi style.

[DaKardii]

I just looked up "Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures," and Avi Arad did indeed help develop it. However, he wasn't the director of the series, he only helped write 10 of the 24 episodes, and was only one of FIVE executive producers for that show. So the amount of influence he actually had on the show is easily debatable.

I never said he directed Pac-Man Ghostly Adventures, I said he made it, as in developed it. I also mentioned that Arad will hopefully find the right team to make this movie happen.

And also remember that this is the guy who was an executive producer for X-Men, Spider Man, X-Men 2, Iron Man, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. So he has good films on his record.

I honeslty have come to the conclusion that most comic book movies aren't even that great, they just sell well because Marvel has such a huge fanbase. If the movie is going to be complete garbage, it's still going to make money.

In addition, there are two people who I'm going to ask Arad, Sony, and Nintendo to try to get on the project. The first guy is someone who you are very familiar with, the other is someone you may not have heard from in a VERY long time: Stephen Spielberg and Don Bluth. Here's my reasoning. Back in the '80s, Don Bluth was an animation TITAN. His films such as "The Secret of NIMH," "An American Tail," "The Land Before Time," and "All Dogs Go to Heaven" were PHENOMENALLY successful. So successful, that "An American Tail" and "The Land Before Time" actually grossed higher than the highest grossing movies DISNEY made in the years they were released (1986 and 1988, respectively). And Stephen Spielberg worked as a collaborator to develop BOTH of those films. How did Bluth become this successful? In addition to getting Spielberg to collaborate with him, he also managed to take a HUGE chunk of veteran Disney animators away from Disney and have them work for him. Those animators left because they were fed up with Disney's obsession with churning out low-quality but still-decent films at a rapid pace in order to make more money. This obsession started after Walt Disney died in 1966, and many animators felt like the company was sacrificing quality for profit, and that Walt Disney would be disgusted with the state his company was in had he still been alive. Bluth, who had been working for Disney as early as 1955, promised that if he had the help, he would be able to churn up animated films at the quality that Walt Disney would have wanted them to be. And the animators believed him and helped it happen. 35 years later, these sentiments are starting to build up at Disney again. Due to the success of "Tangled" and especially "Frozen," Disney has decided to abandon 2-D animation for its movies. Bad move, Disney! What I think Arad should do is convince Bluth to come out of retirement, get 2-D animators who are dissatisfied with Disney's abandonment of 2-D animation to leave Disney and work for him and Arad, and then convince Spielberg to collaborate with Bluth again to help guide them into creating a 2-D animated film that has a quality similar to Disney films such as "Beauty and the Beast," "Aladdin," and "The Lion King," and could very well end up becoming the greatest non-Disney 2-D animated film since "The Secret of NIMH." Arad wants to make it a 3-or-4-film series, so HOPEFULLY if he does take this path, he manages to KEEP Bluth and Spielberg for the whole series so the sequels don't meet the fate of Bluth's later films (such as the incredibly dumb "A Troll in Central Park") or the sequels to Bluth's early films (such as the abysmally bad "Secret of NIMH 2: Timmy to the Rescue").

What do you think?

No.

1) I know you never said he directed it. But that's beside the point. The point I'm trying to make is that it's difficult to properly gauge the amount of influence he had on a show that bad. Therefore, it is not safe to have any expectations that he will be good or bad. We have to look at his other projects as well, such as the movies I listed.

2) Out of the five movies I listed, all of them except X-Men Origins: Wolverine have an 80% or higher rating on Rotten Tomatoes. This probably means that they are very well-liked by audiences and critics alike. Whether you like them or not is your opinion. However, I must admit that you have a very good point when saying that movies can be complete garbage but still make money due to a large fan base. For example, M. Night Shyamalan's "The Last Airbender," widely considered to be one of the worst movies ever made, grossed $319.7 million at the box office, $169.7 million more than its budget.

3) No? I hope you mean "No" as in "it won't work," and not "No" as in "that's not gonna happen." If it's the first one, then please explain why you think it wouldn't work. And if it's the second one, I'm gonna quote Luigi from the '93 movie and say: "Nothing's impossible, you just gotta believe."

[DaKardii]

Actually, I'd watch a Don Bluth animated Mario movie, so long as it stayed true to the 1993 movie's gritty sci-fi style.

I think the best option would be to go in between the 1993 movie's style and the style of the video games. Adopt the settings from the games, but the story line and character personalities from the 1993 film (in my case, I'm adopting it from the 1991 fantasy script not only because it's closer to the games, but also because I actually think it's written better than the script for the final film) You can't be too far away from the games, but in the case of Mario, you can't be too close to it either. The reason why is because the games' plots are, for the most part, underdeveloped and simple, as are the character's personalities. And the parts that are developed, especially in the more recent games, appeal to younger children more than a mainstream audience. If you have played any of the Mario games that came out after Super Mario 64, you would understand where I'm coming from. A film that is based exclusively off the games and takes little to no liberties from them would be a disaster on a scale comparable to Don Bluth's "A Troll in Central Park."

[LBD_Nytetrayn]

I think I missed where they greenlit/announced it, much less for a 2017 release...

In fact, what I saw had Arad denying that any deal had closed, and negotiating with Nintendo was "just the beginning."

[Serum]

Actually, I'd watch a Don Bluth animated Mario movie, so long as it stayed true to the 1993 movie's gritty sci-fi style.

I think the best option would be to go in between the 1993 movie's style and the style of the video games. Adopt the settings from the games, but the story line and character personalities from the 1993 film (in my case, I'm adopting it from the 1991 fantasy script not only because it's closer to the games, but also because I actually think it's written better than the script for the final film) You can't be too far away from the games, but in the case of Mario, you can't be too close to it either. The reason why is because the games' plots are, for the most part, underdeveloped and simple, as are the character's personalities. And the parts that are developed, especially in the more recent games, appeal to younger children more than a mainstream audience. If you have played any of the Mario games that came out after Super Mario 64, you would understand where I'm coming from. A film that is based exclusively off the games and takes little to no liberties from them would be a disaster on a scale comparable to Don Bluth's "A Troll in Central Park."

Hey, I liked A Troll in Central Park-- don't let the critics think for you, man. A wise man once told me that great minds don't think alike, they think for themselves.

[DaKardii]

I think I missed where they greenlit/announced it, much less for a 2017 release...

In fact, what I saw had Arad denying that any deal had closed, and negotiating with Nintendo was "just the beginning."

You did miss something. Here's the link: http://www.nextn.es/2014/12/mario-da-el ... the-movie/

[DaKardii]

Actually, I'd watch a Don Bluth animated Mario movie, so long as it stayed true to the 1993 movie's gritty sci-fi style.

I think the best option would be to go in between the 1993 movie's style and the style of the video games. Adopt the settings from the games, but the story line and character personalities from the 1993 film (in my case, I'm adopting it from the 1991 fantasy script not only because it's closer to the games, but also because I actually think it's written better than the script for the final film) You can't be too far away from the games, but in the case of Mario, you can't be too close to it either. The reason why is because the games' plots are, for the most part, underdeveloped and simple, as are the character's personalities. And the parts that are developed, especially in the more recent games, appeal to younger children more than a mainstream audience. If you have played any of the Mario games that came out after Super Mario 64, you would understand where I'm coming from. A film that is based exclusively off the games and takes little to no liberties from them would be a disaster on a scale comparable to Don Bluth's "A Troll in Central Park."

Hey, I liked A Troll in Central Park-- don't let the critics think for you, man. A wise man once told me that great minds don't think alike, they think for themselves.

It's not just the critics who hate it. A lot of audiences hate it, too. It has a 46% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes. And I personally believe that the only audiences that movie would appeal to are little children. The moral is insanely naive, the plot is poorly written, the characters (especially Stanley and Gnorga) are annoying and unoriginal in personality, and (to a certain degree) it promotes immature behavior to young children.

[Serum]

It's not just the critics who hate it. A lot of audiences hate it, too. It has a 46% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes. And I personally believe that the only audiences that movie would appeal to are little children. The moral is insanely naive, the plot is poorly written, the characters (especially Stanley and Gnorga) are annoying and unoriginal in personality, and (to a certain degree) it promotes immature behavior to young children.

Okay, a 46% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes means nothing to me, my opinion is all that matters to me. Now whether you formed your opinion based on actually watching the film A Troll in Central Park, or by reading or watching a review of it first then seeing it makes a difference as it can skew your perspective. I believe it is important to watch and then judge. As for promoting immature behavior to young children-- it's what, an 80s, 90s movie? All movies from that era promoted terrible behavior, look at Home Alone and Baby's Day Out. I digress, the point is to form your opinion for you, nobody else.

[DaKardii]

It's not just the critics who hate it. A lot of audiences hate it, too. It has a 46% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes. And I personally believe that the only audiences that movie would appeal to are little children. The moral is insanely naive, the plot is poorly written, the characters (especially Stanley and Gnorga) are annoying and unoriginal in personality, and (to a certain degree) it promotes immature behavior to young children.

Okay, a 46% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes means nothing to me, my opinion is all that matters to me. Now whether you formed your opinion based on actually watching the film A Troll in Central Park, or by reading or watching a review of it first then seeing it makes a difference as it can skew your perspective. I believe it is important to watch and then judge. As for promoting immature behavior to young children-- it's what, an 80s, 90s movie? All movies from that era promoted terrible behavior, look at Home Alone and Baby's Day Out. I digress, the point is to form your opinion for you, nobody else.

Fair enough.

[DaKardii]

UPDATE: The Script is finished! I am posting it on this website for people to review on a separate entry! Enjoy!

[Serum]

UPDATE: The Script is finished! I am posting it on this website for people to review on a separate entry! Enjoy!

PM Redstar or Phlibbit. I'm sure they'd be happy to feature it on the main site's "fan fiction" section!

[ultimateemail5000]

I think you're submitting to the wrong company. From the looks of it, either Universal or Disney is gonna get the Nintendo properties.

[Serum]

I'm not even sure if that information leaked was true. I mean, it'd be cool if it was, but I kind of think it was just North Korea tooling with us.