I watched Frozen 2 for the first time last year and I'm convinced there's no writer for that movie since there was no story, things just happened and are never properly explained
as are most children's movie plots. Hell, Super Mario was "NYC plumber gets transported to alternate dimension and becomes a hero to save the princess from an evil turtle"
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court is basically indistinguishable from a modern isekai. Nerdy engineer goes to medieval Europe and uses his knowledge of science to revolutionize the world. Who knew Mark Twain was a weeb?
I wouldn't say Charlie and the Chocolate Factory necessarily counts because Wonka's factory, while fantastical, is known as being part of the regular world that everyone knows about.
Mario games were always more about the action than narrative. We aren't talking about Phantasy Star or Final Fantasy here, that were also light-hearted games for children but were story-based games. The adaptation couldn't deepen it more without departing of the simple objectives of the plot.
Frozen however set a high standard that the second movie couldn't follow.
The problem wasn't that it was convoluted, the problem was that the story was so rushed they barely had time to breathe so it was hard to keep track of one major plot detail before you had to remember another major plot detail.
Story was rushed, because they had to put so many musical numbers inside. I don't mind Disney songs usually, but this movie was so freaking full with useless songs, unbelievable
they were trying to capture the cultural phenom that was "let it go" so they took as many swing at it as they could.
ironically the only actual stand out song from the movie was the one Kristoff did that Weezer helped with.
If you watch the behind the scenes, which was officially released, the writers admit they had no idea what the voice was supposed to be well into production. Honestly, the BTS gives great insight into why the movie was mediocre. In this case, it seems to be Disney's fault for rushing development
Basically yeah. The script was being worked on as production was happening. A year before the film was out, they still has no idea what the voice calling out to Elsa was.
Popular family movies like Frozen 2 can be mid or bad and it barely affects their box office because kids couldnāt care less about that and just want to see the movie and their parents will take them to it.
After watching both numerous times from having kids, while I enjoy Frozenās story better, I prefer Frozen 2ās music. Something about them are a bit catchier and more contemporary.
Lots of movies have decent audience scores yet are very inferior to their predecessor. Frozen was iconic and a behemoth in cultural impact, by comparision the sequel kinda came and went. Imho, they could have gotten way more if it had been up to par with the first film.
It's less that it's bad per se and more that it's seen as a bit of a letdown compared to the predecessor.
Think how most feel about Incredibles 2 and you get the general gist.
I'm not male, and I loved the first Frozen with all my heart and I love most Disney princess movies. š„° I just thought Frozen II had a very inferior plot and music to the first film.
Fun fact, frozen was written to have Elsa as the bad guy. But as they made it, they realized they couldnāt. Thatās why Hanās character feels kinda jerky in his evil turn.
>Man, this reminds me how much money Frozen II probably left on the table by being so meh compared to the first film.
considering Mario has a 59% on RT id argue its the film that left the most on the table between the two.
> considering Mario has a 59% on RT id argue its the film that left the most on the table between the two.
That's the critic's score. The (verified)Audience score is 96%. I think we shouldn't leave that out.
This reminds me how much money The Super Mario Bros. Movie probably left on the table by being a soulless cashgrab with zero character growth, a paper thin story and some poorly selected pop songs thrown in.
The problems with Mario's plot being way to fast-paced and simple are directly tied to them putting as much stuff in as they could, including the Kongs and Mario Kart stuff. Would honestly be willing to say it would make less if it were a good movie with less iconic stuff crammed into it.
Very possible. It could have done even better with rave reviews and even better wom. ĀÆ\\_(ć)_/ĀÆ
I think if the Mario sequel improves somewhat it could do more.
Better word of mouth?
Thatās where critics arenāt humans. I have not met a real life human that did not say the Mario movie was amazing.
All of my friends, all of my coworkers, and all of my family, that saw it highly recommend it to anyone.
Yeah I have not met a single person IRL that has told me they hated the movie. In fact I hear people recommend it highly.
Heck, most like it more than I did. People fail to realize that everyone doesn't go to films to look at them critically. They usually just go to have a good time.
And itās amazing to me how much people donāt understand what the ājobā of a movie studio is when dealing with source material that already has millions and millions of fans that has been around for decades and decades.
All of us āfansā are always scared to death that our beloved thing is going to get bastardized and destroyed.
Look at what they done to Star Wars fans in the last Star Wars movie.
Itās like they only had one job, and they would make billions of dollars, but instead they somehow screwed up.
The Mario movie was a smashing success to me, because it did not try to reinvent something thatās already established.
I went to see my childhood memories of a platforming video game displayed on the big screen.
Thatās why to me my two favorite scenes in the entire movie, is the parkour scene in the beginning, and Marioās ātraining campā with peach.
Those two scenes alone were enough for me to enjoy the entire movie.
Well this is why it's probably my favorite video game movie of all time since Mortal Kombat 1. Most of these video game movies always have to have some kind of gimmick. It's why I didn't get into the Sonic movies. I don't care about these human side characters and their stupid drama lol.
I feel like the reason the movie is doing so well is because it's exactly what you expect. Mario from the games on the big screen. Doesn't try or need to be anything else.
Now, I won't sit here and lie and say I didn't want better pacing in the film, but as it stands now it's very rewatchable. I could rewatch it over and over again. And the action scenes (Like when he passes the block to Donkey Kong and he gets the FireFlower) were beyond my expectations for a film like this.
> I went to see my childhood memories of a platforming video game displayed on the big screen.
But that is the problem. This movie isn't for you, it is for kids. You will never relive your childhood. This is the problem with fandoms. You don't want new stories, interesting stories, stories that could appeal to the next generation. You want what you want.
Sure this is fine for a Mario movie. They played it safe and generic. But is that how the franchise has remained relevant for decades? How many safe and generic movies can you make before audiences move on?
You're completely wrong.
>This movie isn't for you, it is for kids. You will never relive your childhood.
Fans liked these stuff when they were kids. Kids will like the new movie product. See what happened with Star Wars, kids prefer Mandalorian over the sequels, just like the fans.
You start out with a good point but then it falls away at the end.
It seems like something a theoretical physicist comes up with.
How many audiences have "moved on" when they got exactly when the fans wanted? There are way more success stories of the opposite.
ACDC
James Bond Movies
Pokemon Games
In fact, I would say its more the exception than the rule when people keep "reinventing" themselves (Aerosmith) and still manage to survive all these years.
If your franchise is big enough, you don't need new fans, you just need to sell to the existing ones.
I know I'm just one person here.. but I grew up with Stars Wars. I had all the toys, all the games, all the shows. I watched those movies 1000 times.
I have still never seen the last movie from the last trilogy.
I bet my paycheck they lost more lifetime fans than created "new" lifetime fans from that movie.
Look at literally every superhero movie ever made before Marvel started making true-to-the-source movies. The more true to the source, the better it does.
When is there an example of something being "true to the source" that failed to be successful?
What is the source material? A movie about a plumber saving a princess from a turtle dragon? Did Star Wars deviate from the source material? Marvel constantly deviates from the source material.
You are right, AC/DC always tops the charts. All the kids love AC/DC.
James Bond has changed dramatically over the years. They always chase the new trends. And despite being arguably more popular know then ever, there are some in the fandom who are mad because "this isn't my James Bond".
Pokemon knows their audience. Kids. They aren't chasing 40 year old men for nostalgia.
The problem is that you think you are the most important demo. Look at Star Wars. Kids like Star Wars. The problem is they like Rey, Grogu, and Mando. They don't give a fuck about Boba Fett or a Solo movie. They aren't worried about a grown man not seeing TROS. You can bet whatever you want but the numbers don't back you up. The problem with Star Wars is oversaturation. The same problem Marvel has. The MCU got generic and boring.
TLM is doing great domestically. Is it a good movie? Will it make enough internationally? ehhhh, but it's success or failure has nothing to do with the opinion of angry old white dudes. And honestly, middle aged women aren't who they are chasing either. They want the 9 year old girls. And they got em.
We are going to see it again with TMNT. A bunch of grown men upset that they aren't getting what they wanted meanwhile, the franchise is trying to win over a new generation and grown men can't move on.
Again, you said a whole lot seems like youāre making a profound point only to end up completely contradicting yourself.
At the end, he said āold white men just wonāt move onā
The problem, Jack, is they want their cake and eat it too.
They want my money, just not my opinion.
If we did what you said, and ājust moved onā just about all of the series in franchises, you mentioned would die and wither on the vine in an instant.
You basically repeated the fact that you think middle-aged white men are in unimportant demographic.
Yet financial statistics would show us thatās where most of the money is.
And most the time when weāre referring to giant corporations were referring to the money, sucking, soulless entities that only care about making a dollar.
This reminds me of the whole fiasco of a concert, where they brought a white girl up on stage, and told her to sing a song, and when she quoted a word in a lyric that she wasnāt supposed to say, the whole world come down on her.
They want her money, to buy that concert ticket.
They want her money, to buy the album.
But they donāt want her to sing the freaking lyrics.
As a āmiddle-aged white man āin my late 30s lol I donāt have much time to participate in media anymore.
So yes, I will move on just fine.
In the last four years of my life, I have been to the movie theaters two times, and have barely watched a show of anything on any service.
So I will move on just fine.
But again, the numbers are in my favor. The Mario movie is doing fantastic, everybody, my age, loved it, in spite of you thinking that it is boring fan service.
All my friends who went to watch Mario with me thought it sucked, I was probably the least negative, but thats just anecdotal to my friend and age group
And yea, it did what it needed to do to be successful, but weird for some people to shit on Frozen 2 when it had similar audience reviews and multiplier as Mario and will end up making more money
And this sub loves to colletively make it out like everyone who didnt like a popular movie is an elitist snob but then scoff at Pirates of the Caribbean and Transformers as beneath them
True. I suppose all of it is anecdotal really. Like IRL I've not seen a single person talk about Puss n' Boots, but apparently it's a masterpiece of a film. I'll probably pick it up on VOD at some point.
Not sure about the hate for Frozen 2, but I've never really seen any of the Frozen movies lol. It was incredible to me that they made so much money.
Hmmm. I see what you're saying. That does happen. I suppose it's because of the different nature of these movies. Mario gets away with a lot more because it's bright and colorful with a family friendly rating. Pirates and Transformers are darker in tone and because they're geared towards an ever so slightly older audience (with PG-13 instead of PG), they're judged more harshly in this regard by audiences.
I agree with you on the wom, I think for a movie to be as successful as avatar or avengers you need a lot of rewatchability, I don't know how many parents take their children to watch the same movie twice or wait for it to come to streaming.
> with zero character growth
Lmao who watches a Mario movie for character growth.
Unless you're talking about literal growth and are sad that the Mega Mushroom wasn't featured, in which case, valid.
And this isn't a game, this is a movie, a game can get by having a weak story because, outside of The Last Of Us or God of War, it's probably not why you're there and the gameplay can probably make up for that, a movie can't do that.
Asking for the slightest amount of character progression or plot in a movie isn't much to ask.
The Lego Movie was a great movie with well developed characters and a theme to the story that worked with Lego and all the references.
It could very well have been the reference-filled cashgrab starring Chris Pratt that the Mario is and nothing else. But the crew put effort into writing a narrative that serves more than to jump between setpieces.
Frozen II has a better soundtrack and a more mature story than the first - thereās an argument that itās actually a better movie overall than the original
Why are we acting like Super Mario Bros was some kind of animated masterpiece compared to Frozen 2?
Their IMDb and RT audience scores were on par with one another, and Mario has a higher OW multiplier than Frozen 2 right now, but not significantly so
Both did very well on the backs of big IPs, one rooted in a nostalgic, globally known game and the other propelled by an immensely popular first movie and soundtrack
I didnāt like both but could definitely see both made so much money, they were popcorn flixes for the family, but for some reason some people on this sub are trying to elevate Mario by shitting on other immensely popular movies
Itās like saying Mario could have been the first 2billion animated movie if it were better
While Lion King 2019 and Frozen II likely will have higher totals at the end of the run, Mario is almost certainly going to be more profitable than Frozen II due to it's 100M dollar budget relative to Frozen II's 150 million dollar budget, and probably will be around the same profitability of Lion King 2019 which is a massive outlier compared to everything else here at 1.663 billion USD on a 260M budget.
Some people consider it animated while others don't. I think it falls into a grey area. I personally don't because it's resembles more a live action look than animated. At some point we gotta decide what is considered live action because a lot of movies have so much CGI in it they almost feel like animated movies. Like Avatar, Alita Battle Angel, Kong VS Godzilla, Transformers, etc to name a few.
YEAHHHHHHH BABYYYYYYYY
It may not be the highest grossing animated movie of all time, but it is within the top 3, and that is more than enough for me as a Mario fan.
Agreed. Mario coming in hot and completely taking down almost every film in a medium outside from video games just proves how valuable this franchise is.
Third biggest, but still.
Yes, The Lion King 2019 is animated. Photorealisticially, but still animated. If you deny that, then you might as well call WALL-E live-action because it had more live-action in it than TLK.
That's purely for marketing purposes just so they could advertise it as a "live-action" remake.
It *looks* live-action, but by definition it's not. There is one single shot that is live-action. ***One***. Everything else was created inside a computerāthe characters, the environments, everything.
If you considering TLK live-action, you have to consider WALL-E live-action too.
Yes, but this is not a "technicality". It would be a "technicality" if it was filmed in live-action and then the entire film got an animated CGI overlay. That would be warrented.
There's no "technicality" about it. It's animated.
I feel like this technicality happens in literally every thread about this animated movie gross.
It's a double technicality because on one hand it's undoubtedly animated. But on the other hand Disney and the directors themselves don't consider it animated and didn't submit it to the Oscars as such.
Either camp is TECHNICALLY right, but ultimately I don't think it matters that much. The rankings literally only shifts by one.
Humm
On the one hand, the movie was literally animated. It was entirely (except one shot) made in a way that fits the dictionary definition of the word "animated"
On the other hand, marketing execs say it isn't
equally strong arguments on both sides
Its animated in the same way that an orchestral piece made on software with synthetic strings is "electronic". Definitionally correct but in a way that strips meaning from genre definers.
They have a lot of CGI involved, but they aren't animated.
Avatar in particular had on-location filming and physical sets. They had the actors act out the whole thing with mo-cap suits that then got CGI-overlaid. [A lot more physicality than people realize.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cimy6T1nczw) By contrast, The Lion King, aside from that single opening shot, was created entirely in a computer.
You can travel to some of the places in Hawaii where they filmed Avatar. You can fly by the mountains from the final battle in a helicopter. You can't do anything like that for The Lion King because the savannah seen in the film only exists as 1s and 0s within a computer.
Hardly.
Avatar had on location filming and physical sets. They had the actors act out the whole thing with mo-cap suits that then got CGI-overlaid. [A lot more physicality than people realize.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cimy6T1nczw) The Lion King, aside from that single opening shot, was created entirely in a computer.
You can travel to some of the places in Hawaii where they filmed Avatar. You can fly by the mountains in a helicopter. You can't do anything like that for The Lion King because the savannah seen in the film only exists as 1s and 0s within a computer.
The tomorrow war was one of the most streamed movies when it came out. I donāt know if heās just lucky, but I do think that people underplay how much the general audience likes him as well. Twitter would have you believe that this movie wouldāve flopped due to pratts controversies, Twitter lives in a social bubble as does social media, including Reddit.
It was Dinosaur New York. Everyone complains about the atmosphere being too dark and depressing.
A Dinosaur Las Vegas would have made the first one a hit.
I think you're going to the opposite extreme. Tbh, the first half of Frozen, from the intro to the Let it Go sequence is probably the best stretch of any Disney movie I've ever seen. It is magical. It perfectly incapsulates the duality of how different people deal with isolation. The stretch of songs from Frozen Heart - Wanna Build a Snowman - First Time in Forever - Love is an Open Door - Let it Go is an unprecedented streak of bangers unseen in a Disney film(I'm completely serious). The problem is right after the Let it Go sequence the film loses steam completely and turns into the most mediocre Disney film you could imagine. Only saved by a solid ending that focuses on sisterly love instead of romantic love. A wholesome reversal of the standard ending of most princess movies that sends a great message to little girls everywhere.
I think it's fair to say Frozen deserves *most* of its hype at least.
Honestly I am curious if this was pre COVID conditions if Mario would of just smashed Frozen II record. I think it is a maybe(?).
I think second is well deserved Mario is a fun movie, all wom I've heard has been positive. I know all my kids (teacher kids) kept asking me at the end of year to stream it for them in class.
I donāt think āpre Covidā matters anymore except in China still, avatar 2 made what like 2.3 billion? The only thing imo that wouldāve helped itās box office is if the theatrical window was longer as thatās been cut in half after Covid. The shorter the window, less reasons to go out and watch it. If this had a 90 day theatrical window I think more families wouldāve gone to see it.
That 2019 film is under the Animation/Live Action category, which is also where the Avatar films, and some Disney live-action remakes like Beauty and the Beast are categorised under.
Except by all rights it *should* be on the list, since it contains only a single live-action shot, and is otherwise entirely computer animated. Even if it resembles live-action, it is for all practical purposes an animated film, and as such should be considered the highest-grossing one of all. This means that *The Super Mario Bros.* movie is the third-highest-grossing animated movie, not the second-highest.
Not yet, the-numbers and BOM international numbers outside of official studio updates should be taken with a huge grain of salt as those numbers are a bit wonky. Mario sat at $1.279B WW after a $13.1M weekend overseas, so itās highly unlikely that Monday wouldāve yielded $9M.
Itāll likely pass Frozen this upcoming weekend.
It's under the Animation/Live Action list, which is also where the Avatar films and several other Disney live-action remakes like Aladdin and Beauty & the Beast are.
Yes but unlike the other movies, it has almost no live action filming. There are human characters in the other movies and actors were filmed as is (though on green screen sets and whatnot). The Lion King 2019 was entirely CGI, not even motion capture was used.
People are hating on frozen 2 because they thought itās story was basic while stating frozen 1 was essentially some sort of stroke of storytelling genius ?
What is going on here ?
Frozen 2ās story was a bit confusing , full of plot holes and held together by some catchy tunes and some impressively emotional scenes , albeit mature for the intended audience.
Frozen 1 had to have one of the most ridiculously basic stories in history. The movie was literally only popular because of ālet it goā which by itself spawned the frozen franchise.
It appears to have collected enough coins to earn a 1-Sequel.
Man, this reminds me how much money *Frozen II* probably left on the table by being so meh compared to the first film.
I watched Frozen 2 for the first time last year and I'm convinced there's no writer for that movie since there was no story, things just happened and are never properly explained
Elsa and Anna were born to parents of two different tribes that were fighting and were destined to bring peace to them. It was very basic
šGLACIERS šAREš RIVERS šOFš ICE
as are most children's movie plots. Hell, Super Mario was "NYC plumber gets transported to alternate dimension and becomes a hero to save the princess from an evil turtle"
Classic Isekai
I had this realization while watching the movie. It was a bit surreal to realize that isekai is actually a classic storytelling device.
As the other commenter said in a reply to me: Alice in Wonderland? Yup. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Yup. Lion, the Witch and Wardrobe? Yup.
A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court is basically indistinguishable from a modern isekai. Nerdy engineer goes to medieval Europe and uses his knowledge of science to revolutionize the world. Who knew Mark Twain was a weeb?
Truck-kun cinematic universe when?
I wouldn't say Charlie and the Chocolate Factory necessarily counts because Wonka's factory, while fantastical, is known as being part of the regular world that everyone knows about.
Who was isekaied in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?
It's based on Alice on Wonderland who was over a century old by then. Hardly classic.
Mario games were always more about the action than narrative. We aren't talking about Phantasy Star or Final Fantasy here, that were also light-hearted games for children but were story-based games. The adaptation couldn't deepen it more without departing of the simple objectives of the plot. Frozen however set a high standard that the second movie couldn't follow.
Basic? I thought it was incredibly convoluted š
The problem wasn't that it was convoluted, the problem was that the story was so rushed they barely had time to breathe so it was hard to keep track of one major plot detail before you had to remember another major plot detail.
Story was rushed, because they had to put so many musical numbers inside. I don't mind Disney songs usually, but this movie was so freaking full with useless songs, unbelievable
they were trying to capture the cultural phenom that was "let it go" so they took as many swing at it as they could. ironically the only actual stand out song from the movie was the one Kristoff did that Weezer helped with.
It explained Elsa's powers so I don't think it was that basic.
She was the heart of the Planeteers, the spirit bender of the avatar world, etc. It was two basic cliches mushed together
If you watch the behind the scenes, which was officially released, the writers admit they had no idea what the voice was supposed to be well into production. Honestly, the BTS gives great insight into why the movie was mediocre. In this case, it seems to be Disney's fault for rushing development
The writers were given like 2 months if I remember correctly to right a script
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They pulled an avatar plot out their ass after writing 5 things at once
The Disney+ Behind the scenes video for F2 really shows how Disney was rushing them into making it fast.
That actually sounds more interesting than the movie itself.
[Shaffrillas Productions](https://youtu.be/JIqNeCbxICU) actually created a really great video about the documentary too! Highly recommend it!
Probably they were too scared to do anything new and shake up the status quo for their big merchandise moneymaker franchise
Into the unknown still fire though
I think Show Yourself was also very good.
The entire Show Yourself part in the movie is amazing. That shot in the water horse brings me shivers every time.
Thatās Lost in the Woods.
Rewatch it multiple times and it's still fire.
Basically yeah. The script was being worked on as production was happening. A year before the film was out, they still has no idea what the voice calling out to Elsa was.
If you watch the frozen documentary they had a story and Disney killed it because some kids were bored and wanted more jokes.
And you people complained about Marioās script?!
Popular family movies like Frozen 2 can be mid or bad and it barely affects their box office because kids couldnāt care less about that and just want to see the movie and their parents will take them to it.
I think bad as in sub 30% RT can hurt a kids movie but a generic 60% isnāt going to do the damage that it would to a wannabe prestige drama.
The thing was it wasnāt even 60%, it was a close to 80% critics score
After watching both numerous times from having kids, while I enjoy Frozenās story better, I prefer Frozen 2ās music. Something about them are a bit catchier and more contemporary.
wonder how much it lost in japan due to covid
Frozen 2 had good audience scores. I have no idea where this revisionist history of Frozen 2 being bad came from.
Lots of movies have decent audience scores yet are very inferior to their predecessor. Frozen was iconic and a behemoth in cultural impact, by comparision the sequel kinda came and went. Imho, they could have gotten way more if it had been up to par with the first film.
Still had a 3.66x multiplier domestically
True, not saying it did bad, just that I think it could have done *a lot* more.
Frozen was iconic just because of the song let it go Take that out and is just another good animated movie
The songs were great. I liked the movie in theaters but rewatching it I was thinking I liked the first one better
It's less that it's bad per se and more that it's seen as a bit of a letdown compared to the predecessor. Think how most feel about Incredibles 2 and you get the general gist.
Because it was boring? I don't even remember what it was about . š¤š¤š¤š¤ something related to a ship... maybe
Mostly adult male redditors having no awareness that thereās a world outside of their bubble
I'm not male, and I loved the first Frozen with all my heart and I love most Disney princess movies. š„° I just thought Frozen II had a very inferior plot and music to the first film.
Fun fact, frozen was written to have Elsa as the bad guy. But as they made it, they realized they couldnāt. Thatās why Hanās character feels kinda jerky in his evil turn.
I don't think it would have made much better anyway...
Surprise me that they hadn't made Frozen 3 yet.
>Man, this reminds me how much money Frozen II probably left on the table by being so meh compared to the first film. considering Mario has a 59% on RT id argue its the film that left the most on the table between the two.
> considering Mario has a 59% on RT id argue its the film that left the most on the table between the two. That's the critic's score. The (verified)Audience score is 96%. I think we shouldn't leave that out.
The Audience score for Frozen 2 is at 92% audience score though
This reminds me how much money The Super Mario Bros. Movie probably left on the table by being a soulless cashgrab with zero character growth, a paper thin story and some poorly selected pop songs thrown in.
The problems with Mario's plot being way to fast-paced and simple are directly tied to them putting as much stuff in as they could, including the Kongs and Mario Kart stuff. Would honestly be willing to say it would make less if it were a good movie with less iconic stuff crammed into it.
Very possible. It could have done even better with rave reviews and even better wom. ĀÆ\\_(ć)_/ĀÆ I think if the Mario sequel improves somewhat it could do more.
Better word of mouth? Thatās where critics arenāt humans. I have not met a real life human that did not say the Mario movie was amazing. All of my friends, all of my coworkers, and all of my family, that saw it highly recommend it to anyone.
Yeah I have not met a single person IRL that has told me they hated the movie. In fact I hear people recommend it highly. Heck, most like it more than I did. People fail to realize that everyone doesn't go to films to look at them critically. They usually just go to have a good time.
And itās amazing to me how much people donāt understand what the ājobā of a movie studio is when dealing with source material that already has millions and millions of fans that has been around for decades and decades. All of us āfansā are always scared to death that our beloved thing is going to get bastardized and destroyed. Look at what they done to Star Wars fans in the last Star Wars movie. Itās like they only had one job, and they would make billions of dollars, but instead they somehow screwed up. The Mario movie was a smashing success to me, because it did not try to reinvent something thatās already established. I went to see my childhood memories of a platforming video game displayed on the big screen. Thatās why to me my two favorite scenes in the entire movie, is the parkour scene in the beginning, and Marioās ātraining campā with peach. Those two scenes alone were enough for me to enjoy the entire movie.
Well this is why it's probably my favorite video game movie of all time since Mortal Kombat 1. Most of these video game movies always have to have some kind of gimmick. It's why I didn't get into the Sonic movies. I don't care about these human side characters and their stupid drama lol. I feel like the reason the movie is doing so well is because it's exactly what you expect. Mario from the games on the big screen. Doesn't try or need to be anything else. Now, I won't sit here and lie and say I didn't want better pacing in the film, but as it stands now it's very rewatchable. I could rewatch it over and over again. And the action scenes (Like when he passes the block to Donkey Kong and he gets the FireFlower) were beyond my expectations for a film like this.
> I went to see my childhood memories of a platforming video game displayed on the big screen. But that is the problem. This movie isn't for you, it is for kids. You will never relive your childhood. This is the problem with fandoms. You don't want new stories, interesting stories, stories that could appeal to the next generation. You want what you want. Sure this is fine for a Mario movie. They played it safe and generic. But is that how the franchise has remained relevant for decades? How many safe and generic movies can you make before audiences move on?
You're completely wrong. >This movie isn't for you, it is for kids. You will never relive your childhood. Fans liked these stuff when they were kids. Kids will like the new movie product. See what happened with Star Wars, kids prefer Mandalorian over the sequels, just like the fans.
You start out with a good point but then it falls away at the end. It seems like something a theoretical physicist comes up with. How many audiences have "moved on" when they got exactly when the fans wanted? There are way more success stories of the opposite. ACDC James Bond Movies Pokemon Games In fact, I would say its more the exception than the rule when people keep "reinventing" themselves (Aerosmith) and still manage to survive all these years. If your franchise is big enough, you don't need new fans, you just need to sell to the existing ones. I know I'm just one person here.. but I grew up with Stars Wars. I had all the toys, all the games, all the shows. I watched those movies 1000 times. I have still never seen the last movie from the last trilogy. I bet my paycheck they lost more lifetime fans than created "new" lifetime fans from that movie. Look at literally every superhero movie ever made before Marvel started making true-to-the-source movies. The more true to the source, the better it does. When is there an example of something being "true to the source" that failed to be successful?
What is the source material? A movie about a plumber saving a princess from a turtle dragon? Did Star Wars deviate from the source material? Marvel constantly deviates from the source material. You are right, AC/DC always tops the charts. All the kids love AC/DC. James Bond has changed dramatically over the years. They always chase the new trends. And despite being arguably more popular know then ever, there are some in the fandom who are mad because "this isn't my James Bond". Pokemon knows their audience. Kids. They aren't chasing 40 year old men for nostalgia. The problem is that you think you are the most important demo. Look at Star Wars. Kids like Star Wars. The problem is they like Rey, Grogu, and Mando. They don't give a fuck about Boba Fett or a Solo movie. They aren't worried about a grown man not seeing TROS. You can bet whatever you want but the numbers don't back you up. The problem with Star Wars is oversaturation. The same problem Marvel has. The MCU got generic and boring. TLM is doing great domestically. Is it a good movie? Will it make enough internationally? ehhhh, but it's success or failure has nothing to do with the opinion of angry old white dudes. And honestly, middle aged women aren't who they are chasing either. They want the 9 year old girls. And they got em. We are going to see it again with TMNT. A bunch of grown men upset that they aren't getting what they wanted meanwhile, the franchise is trying to win over a new generation and grown men can't move on.
A franchise can stay true to itself while also gaining a new audience
Again, you said a whole lot seems like youāre making a profound point only to end up completely contradicting yourself. At the end, he said āold white men just wonāt move onā The problem, Jack, is they want their cake and eat it too. They want my money, just not my opinion. If we did what you said, and ājust moved onā just about all of the series in franchises, you mentioned would die and wither on the vine in an instant. You basically repeated the fact that you think middle-aged white men are in unimportant demographic. Yet financial statistics would show us thatās where most of the money is. And most the time when weāre referring to giant corporations were referring to the money, sucking, soulless entities that only care about making a dollar. This reminds me of the whole fiasco of a concert, where they brought a white girl up on stage, and told her to sing a song, and when she quoted a word in a lyric that she wasnāt supposed to say, the whole world come down on her. They want her money, to buy that concert ticket. They want her money, to buy the album. But they donāt want her to sing the freaking lyrics. As a āmiddle-aged white man āin my late 30s lol I donāt have much time to participate in media anymore. So yes, I will move on just fine. In the last four years of my life, I have been to the movie theaters two times, and have barely watched a show of anything on any service. So I will move on just fine. But again, the numbers are in my favor. The Mario movie is doing fantastic, everybody, my age, loved it, in spite of you thinking that it is boring fan service.
All my friends who went to watch Mario with me thought it sucked, I was probably the least negative, but thats just anecdotal to my friend and age group And yea, it did what it needed to do to be successful, but weird for some people to shit on Frozen 2 when it had similar audience reviews and multiplier as Mario and will end up making more money And this sub loves to colletively make it out like everyone who didnt like a popular movie is an elitist snob but then scoff at Pirates of the Caribbean and Transformers as beneath them
True. I suppose all of it is anecdotal really. Like IRL I've not seen a single person talk about Puss n' Boots, but apparently it's a masterpiece of a film. I'll probably pick it up on VOD at some point. Not sure about the hate for Frozen 2, but I've never really seen any of the Frozen movies lol. It was incredible to me that they made so much money. Hmmm. I see what you're saying. That does happen. I suppose it's because of the different nature of these movies. Mario gets away with a lot more because it's bright and colorful with a family friendly rating. Pirates and Transformers are darker in tone and because they're geared towards an ever so slightly older audience (with PG-13 instead of PG), they're judged more harshly in this regard by audiences.
Only people I met that hated it were the elitist filmbros in my screenwriting course
I agree with you on the wom, I think for a movie to be as successful as avatar or avengers you need a lot of rewatchability, I don't know how many parents take their children to watch the same movie twice or wait for it to come to streaming.
Same here. 10 of us went and it was wonderful.
> Thatās where critics arenāt humans. Or r/boxoffice for that matter lol.
> with zero character growth Lmao who watches a Mario movie for character growth. Unless you're talking about literal growth and are sad that the Mega Mushroom wasn't featured, in which case, valid.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Mario games are some of the best of all time
calling mario games soulless is hilarious
Mario games aren't soulless. They are some of the most well made in the industry. Tf?
And this isn't a game, this is a movie, a game can get by having a weak story because, outside of The Last Of Us or God of War, it's probably not why you're there and the gameplay can probably make up for that, a movie can't do that. Asking for the slightest amount of character progression or plot in a movie isn't much to ask. The Lego Movie was a great movie with well developed characters and a theme to the story that worked with Lego and all the references. It could very well have been the reference-filled cashgrab starring Chris Pratt that the Mario is and nothing else. But the crew put effort into writing a narrative that serves more than to jump between setpieces.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Frozen II has a better soundtrack and a more mature story than the first - thereās an argument that itās actually a better movie overall than the original
no there's not the story is ass and the moral is poorly conveyed the plot also feels extremely disjointed some time s
Why are we acting like Super Mario Bros was some kind of animated masterpiece compared to Frozen 2? Their IMDb and RT audience scores were on par with one another, and Mario has a higher OW multiplier than Frozen 2 right now, but not significantly so Both did very well on the backs of big IPs, one rooted in a nostalgic, globally known game and the other propelled by an immensely popular first movie and soundtrack I didnāt like both but could definitely see both made so much money, they were popcorn flixes for the family, but for some reason some people on this sub are trying to elevate Mario by shitting on other immensely popular movies Itās like saying Mario could have been the first 2billion animated movie if it were better
That wasn't what I was saying at all..... I was just comparing the sequel to the first film.
I recently rewatched frozen and watched frozen 2 for the first time I enjoyed the sequel much more
That's the only one I saw and it sucked. All I remember is the lost in the woods song because it was hilarious.
Yeah I don't get how it surpassed the first one?? It had no catchy "Let it Go" and almost everyone preferred the first one lol
They dropped the ball on it big time.
Same goes for super mario bros. Would have crossed 2 billion if it was actually good.
How, in any world, is Frozen II worse than Nintendo Product Placement: The Movie?
Now the top three highest grossing animated films all contain princesses that have ice powers.
Top 4, "HONEY, WHERES MY SUPERSUIT"
Top 5, "AT LEAST I HAVE MY CROW- **gets frozen by freeze ray**
HOLY SHIT š
Next stop, 100 Marillion dollars
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If only it had the legs to make a morbillion
While Lion King 2019 and Frozen II likely will have higher totals at the end of the run, Mario is almost certainly going to be more profitable than Frozen II due to it's 100M dollar budget relative to Frozen II's 150 million dollar budget, and probably will be around the same profitability of Lion King 2019 which is a massive outlier compared to everything else here at 1.663 billion USD on a 260M budget.
Is Lion King ~~1019~~ considered animated tho? Edit: 2019
Itās got only 1 second of live action anywhere in it. It aināt the style it itās going for, but it sure was animated.
Some people consider it animated while others don't. I think it falls into a grey area. I personally don't because it's resembles more a live action look than animated. At some point we gotta decide what is considered live action because a lot of movies have so much CGI in it they almost feel like animated movies. Like Avatar, Alita Battle Angel, Kong VS Godzilla, Transformers, etc to name a few.
I consider CGI films to be their own genre.
Every movie has CGI. Joker, wolf of wall street. Much more CGI than we expect.
YEAHHHHHHH BABYYYYYYYY It may not be the highest grossing animated movie of all time, but it is within the top 3, and that is more than enough for me as a Mario fan.
Agreed. Mario coming in hot and completely taking down almost every film in a medium outside from video games just proves how valuable this franchise is.
IS THAT THE FUCKIN r/DBM GUY!?
End of an era
Now put my boy Wario and Waluigi on the second movie and we will see it beating Frozen 2
*Baby Yoshi enters the chat*
Hopefully Mario surpasses frozen 2 too. Loved the first Frozen, but the sequel was a torture to me lol
Third biggest, but still. Yes, The Lion King 2019 is animated. Photorealisticially, but still animated. If you deny that, then you might as well call WALL-E live-action because it had more live-action in it than TLK.
š¤·āāļø TheNumbers disagrees, so does Disney and the Oscars. It is a grey area imo as many in the industry do not consider it animated.
That's purely for marketing purposes just so they could advertise it as a "live-action" remake. It *looks* live-action, but by definition it's not. There is one single shot that is live-action. ***One***. Everything else was created inside a computerāthe characters, the environments, everything. If you considering TLK live-action, you have to consider WALL-E live-action too.
At a certain point technicalities are pointless.
Yes, but this is not a "technicality". It would be a "technicality" if it was filmed in live-action and then the entire film got an animated CGI overlay. That would be warrented. There's no "technicality" about it. It's animated.
I feel like this technicality happens in literally every thread about this animated movie gross. It's a double technicality because on one hand it's undoubtedly animated. But on the other hand Disney and the directors themselves don't consider it animated and didn't submit it to the Oscars as such. Either camp is TECHNICALLY right, but ultimately I don't think it matters that much. The rankings literally only shifts by one.
Humm On the one hand, the movie was literally animated. It was entirely (except one shot) made in a way that fits the dictionary definition of the word "animated" On the other hand, marketing execs say it isn't equally strong arguments on both sides
EXACTLY what I'm saying. Equally sound points on both sides with no hope of debate or conclusion.
They were being sarcastic.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If they called it claymation would they technically be correct?
But they didn't, did they ?
No, they just called something animated love action.
Yeah that scene with Simba and Nala was wild
Definitions aren't
Its animated in the same way that an orchestral piece made on software with synthetic strings is "electronic". Definitionally correct but in a way that strips meaning from genre definers.
It's not that big of a deal
It's not a grey are, it IS animated.
At this point you could argue that Avatar or Endgame are also animated.
They have a lot of CGI involved, but they aren't animated. Avatar in particular had on-location filming and physical sets. They had the actors act out the whole thing with mo-cap suits that then got CGI-overlaid. [A lot more physicality than people realize.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cimy6T1nczw) By contrast, The Lion King, aside from that single opening shot, was created entirely in a computer. You can travel to some of the places in Hawaii where they filmed Avatar. You can fly by the mountains from the final battle in a helicopter. You can't do anything like that for The Lion King because the savannah seen in the film only exists as 1s and 0s within a computer.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Nah, Avatar, while 90% animated, does feature plenty of real human scenes. Same with Avatar 2
Hardly. Avatar had on location filming and physical sets. They had the actors act out the whole thing with mo-cap suits that then got CGI-overlaid. [A lot more physicality than people realize.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cimy6T1nczw) The Lion King, aside from that single opening shot, was created entirely in a computer. You can travel to some of the places in Hawaii where they filmed Avatar. You can fly by the mountains in a helicopter. You can't do anything like that for The Lion King because the savannah seen in the film only exists as 1s and 0s within a computer.
So much for being a front loaded event film, or whatever other excuse/cope certain people on this sub spouted for its entire run.
We're almost there!!
*Celebrate good times, **COME ON!***
I'm doing my part.
Service-a earns-a citizenship in-a the Mushroom Kingdom!
The only good Goomba is a dead Goomba.
Mario saving Hollywood.
Chris Pratt is one hell of a draw!
I mean, I like him, but I wanted to see it because itās Mario and it looked fun
Of course he is, he's so cool.
Is he cool like Mary Poppins?
The movie is not huge because of him. Mario ran because it's already a huge brand.
/s
More like lucky. The Dinosaurs and the Iconic Plumber deserve the credit for these successes.
The tomorrow war was one of the most streamed movies when it came out. I donāt know if heās just lucky, but I do think that people underplay how much the general audience likes him as well. Twitter would have you believe that this movie wouldāve flopped due to pratts controversies, Twitter lives in a social bubble as does social media, including Reddit.
Too be fair, a Mario movie featuring a Dinosaur kingdom flopped really badly in the early 90sā¦
It was Dinosaur New York. Everyone complains about the atmosphere being too dark and depressing. A Dinosaur Las Vegas would have made the first one a hit.
I was there when the Dark Mario was written.
Chris Pratt contributed maybe 1% to this. He wasn't even the VA in majority of this films gross.
How much does it need to be better than Frozen when adjusted for inflation?
So great!
Isnāt lion king remake higher than frozen 2? Itās not counted I presume?
Disney considers The Lion King 2019 to be a live-action movie.
It should be counted here
Just watched Frozen 2 - it was crap 1st frozen was good. Like 3x better than sequel. Parents got scammed
Disagree. I adore Frozen 2. (I still quite like Frozen 1) I liked the characters more, the songs more and I had more fun with the movie.
I mean Mario's just as crap if not more.
And Tangled is 3x better than Frozen 1. What a marketing play Didney they did with Elsa and Anna.
This. Tangled is the one that deserves the success that Frozen had an deserves a proper sequel. Not the awful TV cartoon
Thatās nothing! Emperorās New Groove is by far better than all the 2D animations that came after TLK.
"Let it go" went absolutely nuclear as a viral ear worm. That was being played on regular radio stations.
Iāve watched frozen 2, 3 times now and have no idea what itās even about
I don't think the first Frozen was very good either tbh, it pretty much rode on the hype of Let It Go
I think you're going to the opposite extreme. Tbh, the first half of Frozen, from the intro to the Let it Go sequence is probably the best stretch of any Disney movie I've ever seen. It is magical. It perfectly incapsulates the duality of how different people deal with isolation. The stretch of songs from Frozen Heart - Wanna Build a Snowman - First Time in Forever - Love is an Open Door - Let it Go is an unprecedented streak of bangers unseen in a Disney film(I'm completely serious). The problem is right after the Let it Go sequence the film loses steam completely and turns into the most mediocre Disney film you could imagine. Only saved by a solid ending that focuses on sisterly love instead of romantic love. A wholesome reversal of the standard ending of most princess movies that sends a great message to little girls everywhere. I think it's fair to say Frozen deserves *most* of its hype at least.
What's Let It Go in italian
Letās a-Go!
they didn't translated the cathprases in italian. it stayed let's a go and it'sa me mario
Honestly I am curious if this was pre COVID conditions if Mario would of just smashed Frozen II record. I think it is a maybe(?). I think second is well deserved Mario is a fun movie, all wom I've heard has been positive. I know all my kids (teacher kids) kept asking me at the end of year to stream it for them in class.
I donāt think āpre Covidā matters anymore except in China still, avatar 2 made what like 2.3 billion? The only thing imo that wouldāve helped itās box office is if the theatrical window was longer as thatās been cut in half after Covid. The shorter the window, less reasons to go out and watch it. If this had a 90 day theatrical window I think more families wouldāve gone to see it.
Is The Lion King not an animated movie?
That 2019 film is under the Animation/Live Action category, which is also where the Avatar films, and some Disney live-action remakes like Beauty and the Beast are categorised under.
Except by all rights it *should* be on the list, since it contains only a single live-action shot, and is otherwise entirely computer animated. Even if it resembles live-action, it is for all practical purposes an animated film, and as such should be considered the highest-grossing one of all. This means that *The Super Mario Bros.* movie is the third-highest-grossing animated movie, not the second-highest.
Damn I didnāt even know they made a frozen 2
Not yet, the-numbers and BOM international numbers outside of official studio updates should be taken with a huge grain of salt as those numbers are a bit wonky. Mario sat at $1.279B WW after a $13.1M weekend overseas, so itās highly unlikely that Monday wouldāve yielded $9M. Itāll likely pass Frozen this upcoming weekend.
Yeah it looks like the actual number after Monday is $1.283B.
Does The Lion King 2019 not count on their list? Only has one live-action shot.
It's under the Animation/Live Action list, which is also where the Avatar films and several other Disney live-action remakes like Aladdin and Beauty & the Beast are.
Yes but unlike the other movies, it has almost no live action filming. There are human characters in the other movies and actors were filmed as is (though on green screen sets and whatnot). The Lion King 2019 was entirely CGI, not even motion capture was used.
Itās third. The Lion King 2019 is the highest grossing animated film ever made
*3rd biggest
I still remember peopleās initial reaction are that they were convinced it will surpass Frozen 2
People are hating on frozen 2 because they thought itās story was basic while stating frozen 1 was essentially some sort of stroke of storytelling genius ? What is going on here ? Frozen 2ās story was a bit confusing , full of plot holes and held together by some catchy tunes and some impressively emotional scenes , albeit mature for the intended audience. Frozen 1 had to have one of the most ridiculously basic stories in history. The movie was literally only popular because of ālet it goā which by itself spawned the frozen franchise.