A few weeks ago, in the run-up to the release ofThe Super Mario Bros. Movie, I spoke to Chris Pratt and Charlie Day andconversation eventually turned to the Nintendo Cinematic Universe. I want to state, for the record, that the question I asked was about Charles Martinet, which led Pratt and Day to Easter Eggs and then to the idea of a cinematic universe. But seeing as that was apparently all the duo were asked about throughout the press tour, I can understand why it was on their minds. However, I’m here to say ‘enough is enough’.We don’t need a Nintendo Cinematic Universe.
It makes for a good headline, at least at first. It’s fun to speculate on what movies might be next in line, and where it might all head.Zeldais the obvious next port of call, and thenthere’s Detective Pikachu and its place in the worldif everything is to join up. But it quickly becomes a dull topic to hear about over and over again - even actually speaking to the Mario brothers, it was far more interesting tosee them join my crusade for Bowsette in the sequelor to hearPratt’s measured take on the Mario voice backlash. Ultimately, a cinematic universe is just not that interesting - most of them failed for good reason.
Related:The Super Mario Bros. Movie Review - Take A Bowser
Sure, it worked forMarvel. Avengers: Endgame is one of the best cinematic experiences I have enjoyed, tearing up as a decade and a half of movies hit an emotional climax. It wasn’t that the movie itself was spectacular in isolation so much as the fact it felt like a worthy payoff to movies I had loyally kept up with. But already this is turning sour. Immediately after Endgame ended an era, we were right back in cinemas forSpider-Man, which led to spin-off TV shows that asked for far too much investment and a whole phase of treading water because the movies can’t just be movies, they need to work towards another payoff that now feels far more contrived.
It has bred an obsession in our culture for needing everything to be linked, connected, part of a bigger plan. It seems less concerned with the payoff of Endgame and more with the idea that our time must never be wasted. If a good movie is just a good movie, what’s the point in that? Many, it seems, would rather have a bad movie that offers the excuse of a universe. The time and money I wasted going to see Ant-Man and the Wasp Quantumania was actually an intelligent investment in my future cinematic enjoyment, and not a colossally foolish waste of an evening.
I also have to question the destination. With Marvel, it made sense. You have individual hero movies, then they team up together. It’s a little wayward now with such a sprawling cast, but initially, all of the individual Avengers teaming up for an Avengers movie was mind-blowing. Where do you go with Nintendo?Smash Bros.has been offered as the solution, but given the story is nonsensical and the roster is at almost 100, including non-Nintendo characters and those unlikely to ever get a movie, how would that work? More to the point, who plays Smash Bros. and thinks ‘golly gee I’d really love a movie of this’?
A sequel toMariois inevitable afterthe success of the first movie, and as someone who found it to be a fairly enjoyable experience, I’m looking forward to seeing what happens with a second go around. The characters could be a little more fleshed out, and we know we’re getting Yoshi (hopefully Daisy too), and clearly people like the carefree structure of this. As I noted in my review, this is very much an Illumination movie, and with a character as visually iconic but lacking in classic stories as Mario, Illumination’s slapstick style works. But it wouldn’t work elsewhere.
I think in time we will get a Zelda movie. It’s a franchise almost as recognisable as Mario, has much richer lore, and is at the peak of its cultural power. However, I don’t think Illumination should make it. The studio has a distinct animation style which brings the wacky platforming and inherently comedic world of Mario to life, but a Zelda movie will need to be a little more contemplative. I still expect it to be a movie for children, but something closer to Wall-E than The Secret Life of Pets.
After that, I’m struggling to see where this Nintendo universe even goes.Kirby, as much as I love it, is a step down from Nintendo’s biggest hitters, whileAnimal Crossingis too directionless for a movie. Pokemon is already its own live-action thing.Metroidwas put forward by Pratt and Day, andBrie Larson has long voiced interest in the role should it happen. However, I think a live-action movie would again be best here, something darker but approachable, like The Batman.
But even that feels like a bit of a rubbish fan request, doesn’t it? A Metroid movie like The Batman with Brie Larson in the lead role? It’s just a bunch of buzzwords and potentially cool ideas cobbled together into something that resembles a pitch. Asking for a cinematic universe is just that going on forever, just gluing ideas other people had together and deciding that’s what you want, and the ideas aren’t even that cool. We don’t need any more cinematic universes. We definitely don’t need any that involve a Zelda film by Illumination that culminates in whatever the hell Smash Bros.’ story is.
