http://www.gonintendo.com/?mode=viewstory&id=185495
The relevant bit:
<img src="http://www.gonintendo.com/content/uploads/images/2012_9/No-koopa.jpg">
This kinda flies in the face of the SMB3 manual which states numerous times they ARE his kids, and again in both the All-Stars and Advance version's manuals.
I really don't care too much about Mario's "continuity" and tend to think of the Mario universe as in flux like the Looney Toons universe. If the old quartet of games has them as his children and the new set of games sets them as... um... a bunch of random koopas of no relation, then that's fine. I can just accept that most Mario games occur in their own isolated instances and the general personalities are all that get moved around from game to game. It just doesn't seem very fun or interesting to me though. Bowser Jr isn't all that interesting on his own.
Ya know what? Screw it, they're still his kids to me. Miyamoto's statements about continuity in interviews aren't really to be trusted anyway. Remember all those completely contradictory statements about Zelda's timeline before they officially released a timeline that, wouldn't you know it, ended up matching perfectly with what they originally said in the games themselves.
Glad to see you show interest. It's like you missed the part where this is a Nintendo forum wherein fans share opinions on wide and varied topics of Nintendinterest. I mean if I wanted to be mocked for having nerdy interests I'd go back to high school.
Trying to find any sort of continuity [or logic] in the story of Super Mario Bros. is a losing proposition. Also, not that interesting really.
Yeah, I saw this interview, and that was definitely a retcon. And I agree, they're his children, darnit...
In one other part of the interview, he says how the SMB movie is wrong and Mario and Luigi's last name isn't "Mario"; instead, if they have one it's unknown.
GR, I said that continuity didn't really matter to me in the Mario series, but this is a pretty bizarre thing to change out of the blue. That's all. It'd be like them suddenly saying "oh yeah, Mario and Luigi aren't brothers any more". It doesn't really matter if they're friends or what, but it doesn't really make any sense to change something like that, especially if they supposedly don't care about the story. Why not just give some non-committal "they're whatever your imagination wants them to be" answer?
But really, if you don't think it's important, you don't have to make that known. Your lack of interest would be displayed perfectly fine just not commenting. What gets me here is just your seeming disdain for us discussing matters of no import. We're not going to collapse into suicidal madness over this. It's just nerd talk, no different than speculating on whether Epic Mickey is cannon with Kingdom Hearts, and you might have fun just joining in on it and reveling in it not just in spite of it being completely unimportant, but BECAUSE it doesn't matter.
Heck, that angry video game nerd fellow put together an entire series based on pointless dumb questions, like, say, where does Clark Kent put his clothes when he turns into Superman? It doesn't mean my universe revolves around something like that. We're all self-aware about it, but it can be really fun and funny to see just what sort of logistics people come up with for this stuff.
Further, you really have to expect and EMBRACE that sort of thing if you're going to cultivate a fan base in sci-fi.
They don't care about the story, which is why they continually shift it to whatever they want it to be at the moment.
That's fine, so what? What exactly do you have against this conversation? Let's say in the future some fan found some contradiction in a series of books you wrote. Would you look at it to see if it could be resolved, or maybe say "yeah you're right you got me there", or would you say "I really don't think that's important and neither should you, what you should REALLY be paying attention to in my stories is...". Because, I can safely say that if you gave the latter as an answer, you'd seem pretty condescending to the fans who took the time to get invested in that world you made.
That's really what it gets down to. We're all fans here who are invested in the worlds Nintendo makes. Mario's universe isn't as serious as other Nintendo properties, and so in the end the stories can all be really simple and overall plot can go where it wants. That's something I already said but you seem to just restate it every post like I never said it. However, if something strikes me as odd or just plain "off" about some comment Miyamoto made about the story, it's not wrong to say, "hey, this doesn't really make sense". I wouldn't normally go off like this, but it seems like every time ABF or I bring up something like this, THIS is your reaction. "Stop caring, stop getting invested, none of this matters." I'm not sure if you're trying to save us from some life of being overly obsessed with fiction to the point of ignoring reality, but I can safely say I'm in no such danger. I'm just trying to discuss things with other fans, so please relax and either join in or try to at least avoid criticizing us for daring to do so ourselves.
The Koopalings were really the result of a drug-induced nightmare. They were imagined, drawn from whole cloth and then given flesh by the buzz of narcotics. Which also explains killer plants coming out of pipes and breathing fire. And giant, talking lizards that also breath fire. Put down the 'shrooms, Mario, and get some help!
But Bowser is real. VERY REAL. The end.
In the full interview, I think my favorite part is when he compares Mario and co. to the cast of a play, or to Popeye and such (where in one cartoon Popeye and Bluto beat eachother up, then in the next it's got a different setting and they're friendly for once; remember that Popeye had a big influence on Miyamoto), as an explanation for why sometimes Mario is rescuing Peach from Bowser, and other times they play sports together. It certainly does fit well.
Indeed so, it's exactly what I've been thinking of the Mario series as. As I said, not a single person complains about how many times Bugs Bunny has met Elmer Fudd for the first time over and over again in different bits of hunting. Those characters end up in all sorts of different settings every single episode with narry a care to continuity. I'm fine with that and it works out. I only consider stories "consistant" if they have sequel numbering. So, the Mario Land games occur in the same continuity, maybe, and so do the Mario Bros games (and World I think). The New Super Mario Bros. games may or may not have continuity, the Galaxy games seem to, and the various Mario RPGs seem to stand on their own as well. Some games refer to the fact Mario has saved the kingdom numerous times, so take your pick of whatever adventure preceded those games.
Bowser going from evil dark lord to evil sports rival to evil... steamboat captain maybe? That's fine too. I really just didn't get the koopaling thing, since they look like his kids and there's nothing explaining it. If we're going with Popeye, why not make them like the triplets? Sometimes they're Popeye's nephews and other times they're his kids. They're at least explained though. As it stands, I got no issues just continuing to think of them as Bowser's brats since the game doesn't say otherwise.
To GR: That's what I'm talking about. Finally, a reasonable explanation. Bowser is Obama, and Mario can see through his lizard man disguise. Done!