How Super Mario Bros. (1993) Explains the Entire Super Mario Bros. Franchise?

One of the big mysteries of the Super Mario Bros. series is: who is the mother of the Koopalings (although they were initially Bowser’s children, they were later retconned to be unrelated) or Bowser Jr.? Also, what does Bowser Jr.’s mother think about Bowser pathological obsession and love for Princess Peach? Why did Bowser raise Bowser Jr. to believe that Princess Peach is his mother, as seen in the infamous scene in Super Mario Sunshine?

 

In almost every Mario video game, Bowser repeatedly kidnaps Princess Peach, truly believing that she loves him. Each game shows Peach confused and baffled by Bowser’s obsession, including the reveal of Bowser Jr. calling her “mama” In the 2023 movie, Princess Peach called Bowser’s expectation of her reciprocating his love “insane.” Could the 1993 Super Mario Bros. film explain all of this?

 

The Super Mario Bros. film is widely considered a pretty awful movie, one that seems embarrassed to be a Mario Bros. story. Instead of presenting the Mario universe as it is, it tries to explain its fantastical elements using science fiction. It might have worked if the film had fully committed to that approach, but the mix of a goofy tone with dystopian science fiction resulted in a jarring and unsatisfying experience.

 

However, the most compelling aspect of the Super Mario Bros. movie is the introduction of the character Lena Koopa, Bowser’s wife. Her presence and her subsequent death can be interpreted as explaining the entirety of the Mario franchise.

 

During the movie, Bowser kidnaps Princess Daisy. He is clearly attracted to her and unsuccessfully tries to seduce her, essentially having a one-sided emotional affair. Lena recognizes Bowser’s attraction and is clearly jealous. This leads her to try to murder Princess Daisy until Daisy is rescued by Yoshi. Bowser’s infatuation with Daisy drives Lena to take matters into her own hands, independently attempting to enact Bowser’s plans, ultimately leading to her death.

 

Integrating Lena into the Mario Series

What would happen if Lena Koopa were incorporated into the Super Mario Bros. series? Suppose Lena is Bowser’s fiancée. In the first Super Mario Bros. game, Bowser kidnaps Princess Peach, probably for political or power reasons. Over time, he develops romantic feelings toward Peach, which are not reciprocated, effectively constituting a one-sided emotional affair. Lena becomes jealous and attempts to stop Mario independently. Perhaps one of the impostor Bowser characters in the first game or the “Fake Bowser” who attacks Mario prior to the final boss in Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels could be interpreted as Lena Koopa, ultimately killed in the process.

 

When Princess Peach is rescued and Bowser is defeated, Bowser must confront the fact that his attraction and emotional affair with Peach indirectly caused Lena’s death, depriving Bowser Jr. and the Koopalings of a mother. How can he look his children in the eyes, knowing that his own moral failings led to this tragedy?

 

This experience could plausibly cause Bowser to mentally crack. In his mind, Lena and Princess Peach fuse into a single, interchangeable figure. He develops an erotomanic delusion. Not only does he believe Peach loves him, but she also becomes the mother of Bowser Jr. and all the Koopalings. If Peach is not Lena, Bowser must confront the reality that his infidelity caused his fiancée’s death and left his children motherless, a reality too painful to face.

 

By fusing Peach and Lena in his mind, Bowser denies Lena’s death and the separateness of Peach, allowing himself to pretend that his wife and the mother of his children is still alive as well as absolved himself of any wrongdoing with his attraction to Peach. This is why he raises Bowser Jr. to believe that Peach is his mother and that Mario is trying to kidnap her. This explains why throughout the series, Bowser repeatedly kidnaps Peach and attempts to force her into marriage. It is an act of undoing, an attempt to reverse the trauma of Lena’s death and atone for his betrayal. Bowser’s insistence that Peach love him, despite her hatred, is a repetition compulsion, a way to manage his guilt over betraying his fiancée and depriving his children of a mother.

. This is why he raises Bowser Jr. to believe that Peach is his mother and that Mario is trying to kidnap her. This explains why throughout the series, Bowser repeatedly kidnaps Peach and attempts to force her into marriage. It is an act of undoing, an attempt to reverse the trauma of Lena’s death and atone for his betrayal. Bowser’s insistence that Peach love him, despite her hatred, is a repetition compulsion, a way to manage his guilt over betraying his fiancée and depriving his children of a mother.

Bowser, Mario, and the Reality Principle

This also explains Bowser’s hatred of Mario. Mario represents reality crashing into Bowser’s delusions. Whenever Mario rescues Peach, he enforces the truth that Peach is not Lena and does not reciprocate Bowser’s feelings. Bowser cannot tolerate this, which explains why he repeatedly attempts to kill Mario and abduct Peach.

 

Yet this dynamic also accounts for Bowser’s eventual defeat to Mario and his occasional truces with him in various sporting and racing games. Perhaps part of Bowser subconsciously wants to be punished and to accept defeat for his sins. Notably, Bowser defeats Mario in the intros of Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario Odyssey without killing him. His oscillation between mortal enemy and sporting rival reflects a psychological split: he hates Mario for shattering his delusions, but he also appreciates the punishment Mario delivers for his moral failings. Despite his hatred for Mario, Mario must survive and ultimately defeat him.

Conclusion

Viewed through this lens, Lena from the 1993 Super Mario Bros. movie offers a darkly coherent explanation for Bowser’s obsession, the delusions surrounding Peach and Bowser Jr., and the repetitive cycle of kidnapping and confrontation that defines the Mario franchise.

There needs to be an AVGN episode of Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels

I just finished The Lost Levels on the original Famicom version. I do not feel any guilt whatsoever about save-state scumming the game to achieve 100 percent completion. This includes beating the game eight times to unlock the bonus worlds. It is fortunate that Nintendo Switch Online includes rewind functionality, which allows the player to reverse time whenever they die. What makes this game unique is that it is essentially a troll game, deliberately designed to frustrate the player and actively induce an Angry Video Game Nerd–style rage, while laughing at the player in the process. Think of all the games AVGN becomes angry at due to incompetence or poor design decisions, and replace that with highly competent designers who are deliberately trying to provoke the same emotional response as a practical joke. The long-running joke about Super Mario Bros. 3 being “the Devil’s game” is far more applicable to The Lost Levels, as its designers are consciously cruel to the player. It is the personification of an evil game. What is particularly striking is how the game actively punishes muscle memory and competence developed from the original Super Mario Bros. The player is forced to unlearn what the first game taught them. A simple jump that would succeed every time in the original game now results in hitting an invisible block and falling to one’s death. These invisible blocks are deliberately placed where experienced players instinctively jump, specifically targeting veteran players rather than newcomers. The original Super Mario Bros. encouraged exploration. Entering a green pipe often led to a hidden sub-level filled with bonus coins, teaching players to investigate every pipe for secrets. In The Lost Levels, the player jumps down a pipe expecting to enter it, only to find that it leads nowhere. When they attempt to escape, they hit two invisible blocks and die by a Piranha plant popping out. This philosophy extends throughout the game through the infamous poison mushroom, backward warp pipes, and wind physics that disrupt familiar jump timing. There are trampoline levels where Mario is launched off-screen, forcing the player to estimate where they will land with no visual reference, which feels fundamentally unfair. Other trampolines have altered physics and fail to provide the expected height, requiring extremely precise timing to clear jumps. Some sections are impossible to complete as Big Mario, forcing the player to intentionally take damage and proceed as Small Mario. Later levels demand pixel-perfect landings on single blocks or precise timing to chain jumps across multiple Paratroopas. One particularly egregious example involves a running jump to land on a green pipe that is completely off screen. Upon landing, a Piranha Plant immediately emerges, guaranteeing damage. The only way to survive is to slowly inch toward the ledge to scroll the camera until the pipe becomes visible, then time the jump so the Piranha Plant is retracted. This solution is impossible to discover without dying first. Even if the player is skilled enough to complete the game, they are then required to beat it eight times to unlock Worlds A through D. This requirement was mercifully removed in Super Mario All-Stars. It is easy to imagine the Angry Video Game Nerd’s jaw dropping when, after immense frustration in completing the game, he realises he must do it seven more times. Is this a bad game? In its original form, I think the answer is yes. In an era limited to three lives and no save system, death meant restarting from the beginning. The game contains unavoidable death traps that cannot be survived on a first playthrough and require memorisation to progress. Being killed by an unavoidable trap and sent back to the early levels is already punishing enough. Requiring the entire game to be completed eight times in a single uninterrupted play history to access bonus worlds, which are themselves brutally difficult, is pure sadism. I cannot imagine anyone achieving full completion on the original Famicom without leaving the console powered on for weeks, repeatedly practising without ever turning the system off, as doing so would reset the completion counter. In fact, it is difficult to even consider The Lost Levels a conventional game. Gameplay does not feel like the primary purpose of its existence. Instead, it functions as a sophisticated prank. One can easily imagine the developers designing this game, watching focus-group playtesters fall into trap after trap, and laughing at their suffering. It is easy to picture an evil, demonic Mario taunting the Angry Video Game Nerd as he repeatedly dies. However, in the modern era of save states and rewind features provided by emulation or Nintendo Switch Online, many of these complaints lose their severity. I would actually recommend players experience The Lost Levels, not as a traditional video game, but as an artistic statement. It may be one of the most artistically interesting Mario games ever made. Most Mario games prioritise fun through refined gameplay mechanics. While some argue that the Galaxy games introduce atmosphere and narrative depth, these claims are somewhat overstated. The atmosphere and story may be advanced for a Mario title, but they remain superficial by broader video game standards. The Lost Levels, by contrast, presents a uniquely original artistic statement within the medium. The game is a practical joke played on the player. Its purpose is to lure the player into developer-designed traps and kill them. In its original form, this induces rage. With the modern removal of consequences through save states and rewind mechanics, the meaning changes. Instead of pure frustration, the experience becomes a shared joke. The developers laugh at the player’s expense, and the player responds, “That was a clever prank, you got me,” before laughing along and continuing. Through this lens, The Lost Levels may have evolved into one of the most original and compelling experiences in video game history. It may be an awful game in traditional terms, but it is also one of the medium’s great artistic experiments. There are many games out there that are hard, but The Lost Levels is unique in the fact that it is hard by subverting expectations and deceiving the players which is the video game equivalent of slapstick comedy. One can even see how it directly paved the way for Mario ROM hacks and Mario Maker troll levels, where sadistic design is no longer accidental but celebrated.

Undertale Theory on the nature of the protagonist (Spoilers)

This post is for people who have actually played this game to completion.

Don't read it if you intend to play it and haven't yet

I have been wracking my brain trying to piece together the Chara/Frisk/player connection and this is my working explanation. Feel free to tell me whether I'm on the right track here.

Most people seem to think that you are playing as Frisk and that Chara aka the first fallen child that you name at the beginning is a separate character. The obvious reasoning is the ending of the pacifist run where Asriel essentially told him that he isn't Chara and that Frisk behaved nothing like Chara. Also in the genocide run Chara became a separate entity that ended up attacking the player.

However, the curve ball is at the end of the pacifist run when you then reload Undertale. Flowey had a heart felt plead begging the player not to reset the world and erase all the achievements (and character development from Flowey/Asriel). he directed this message right at Chara not at Frisk.

Trying to fit this all together in a way that makes sense. I'm concluding that the player you are controlling a synthesis of Frisk soul and Chara's determination and this essay is my rationale.

My view is that after Chara died. His body was brought by Toriel back to ruins and buried in the bed of golden flowers. Chara was essentially a soulless being similar to Flowey his soul merged with Asriel and is presumably destroyed after Asriel died. However similar to the way Asriel lived on due to determination in the body of a flower, Chara inhabit the body of Frisk. However they differ in the source of determination as Asriel remnants was injected with determination but Chara's determination was inherent to his personality. 

If you notice the caskets at the basement of Asgore castle, Chara's soul was red as shown in the casket which was the same colour as Frisk throughout the game

If you notice in the snow-golf game. Each colour of the human soul represents different aspects of humanity and presumably the characters of the previous human

Bravery = Orange. Justice = Yellow. Integrity = Blue. Kindness = Green. Perseverance = Purple. Patience = Light Blue.

As it was established that determination was the source of the power to "save/reload" and Flowey specifically plead to Chara not to used that power. Also the primary used of the save/reload function is to escape death and whenever we die we hear Chara's memory. I'm going to infer that the colour Red represents "Determination" and this determination is from Chara and not Frisk. Frisk who had his own soul but adopted Chara determination (and hence turned his soul red to match Chara) when he fell and landed on the burial site of Chara.

Whenever Frisk died you end up getting flashbacks from Chara memories of Asgore telling him to stay determined that gave Frisk the power to go back in time. Or when Frisk had the temptation to live with Toriel at the ruins and not escape, message came to stay determine from Asgore about how Chara is the future hope between monsters and humans which prevented the player from just giving up the adventure and you get flashbacks from Chara's life with Asriel during the final boss encounter that helped Frisk "save" Asriel. To me it was Chara determination that drove the adventure of Undertale

So what was Chara's determined about? 

Well we know that Chara deliberately consumed buttercup to poison itself so that Chara can merge souls with Asriel to escape the barriers to get 6 more human souls. Depending on your playthrough this can be interpret two ways

1. Chara was a troubled and evil person who hated humanity who poisoned Asgore and laugh about it and left the underground to kill the humans and obtain their souls and become powerful and godlike.
2. Chara was a troubled but ultimately well-meaning person who was willing to sacrifice its own life to allow Asriel to escape the barrier and to bring back six human souls to liberate the monster kingdom. When attacked by humans, Chara wanted to kill them in self-defence. The poisoning of Asgore was a prank gone wrong rather than a deliberate attempt and the laughter was more of a nervous laugher than anything sadistic.

Both are the light side and dark side of Chara's character. However unlike Flowey who was a soulless being, Chara inhabited a being with a soul which was Frisk and hence he had the potential for good and to feel compassion for the characters (this is represented how the players felt compassion to the characters).

In the pacifist playthrough it was Chara's determination to liberate the monster that drove the game. During the final battle when interacting with Toriel's Lost Soul one of the dialogue was "You tell the Lost Soul that you have to go if you're going to free everyone. Something is stirring within her".  This reveals what Frisk actually said to Toriel (we had no way of knowing before the final boss fight with Asriel as Frisk was a silent protagonist) during the section in the ruins when Toriel was spared and Frisk left the ruins. It makes no sense for Frisk to say that as Frisk was a stranger who just fell into the ruins who never met the monster before. However this is consistent with Chara motivation who believed he was the future hope of monsters and humans as shown by the flashback either during death or sleeping in Toriel's house and was determined to exit the ruin and to free the monster kingdom. In a way this was a redemption of Chara's character. In the beginning Chara wanted to kill 6 humans to liberate the monsters but in the pacifist playthrough Chara ended up achieving the goal peacefully without anyone dying. After the pacifist run finish there was one final choice where Chara is place in a similar dilemma to Flowey. Chara can let go of Frisk and essentially rest in peace and essentially leave the mortal coil and let Frisk go or do what Flowey did and reset the world. If the reset option is chose then Chara would mimic Flowey choice as demonstrated by this quote 

"But as I left this mortal coil... I started to feel apprehensive. If you don't have a SOUL, what happens when you...? Something primal started to burn inside me. 'No,' I thought. 'I don't want to die!' ... Then I woke up. Like it was all just a bad dream"

In the genocide playthrough it was Chara hatred of humanity and lust for power that drove Chara's determination. Ultimately the end game of Chara was that it wanted to exit the monster world and destroy humanity. That's the reason why Chara asked the players to reset the game and do a (soulless) pacifist run so it can escape the monster kingdom and kill all the humans. Unlike the pacifist run, the genocide run strengthen Chara's determination as the lust for power is augmented by Frisk behaviour.

The reason why it was revealed the character was controlling was Frisk at the end of the pacifist run and not Chara was because that was the point where Chara's determination has been fulfilled. Asriel was liberated and he decided to break the barrier which liberated the monster. This completely fulfilled Chara's ultimate goal and hence Chara's determination has subsided as Chara achieved its goal. Contrast this to the genocide run where instead of resolving Chara determination we cement his determination by indulging in his anger and hatred and lust for power to an extent where he completely controls Frisk body (as shown by Chara name appearing when looking at the mirror). Once Frisk gets power, Chara becomes more determine for more power and hence reveal itself openly. In the pacifist run liberating Chara is just passively influencing Frisk to lead Frisk to liberate the monsters and to keep Frisk alive.

Now the rebuttal is how do we explain Chara becoming a separate character outside our control in the genocide ending. My view is that is part of the theme of Undertale. When you have the ability to time travel and essentially fix any mistakes you have done and have the ability to shape the world to your vision. A question pops up, is all the things we that we normally consider immoral and unethical such as murder really bad if you can just click your fingers and the consequences disappears? Flowey started to kill for that exact rationale out of curiosity knowing that Flowey was immune to consequences. However, the main theme of the game is that you can't click the fingers and erased the consequences even if you had the ability to time travel. If you were able to maliciously murder people (and to play the genocide run you simply can't argue self-defense for killing Papyrus or attempting to kill monster kid) and to commit genocide you have to irreversibly change your personality to do that. Once you cross the moral event horizon there is no going back and you simply can't go back to being a good person. This is represented in game where Chara became a separate being from the main character. We the player lost control because to kill all those monsters, we permanently lost control of our moral center and there is no going back. Chara determination in acting out his hatred goes beyond our player's control. So the player is Chara but the players determination to commit genocide cause a disconnect between the players and Chara where previously they were interconnected. 

Asriel could have been redeemed as he was soulless when he committed the evil act and we could call to his good side when he accesses to souls and compassion to redeem him. Chara couldn't be redeemed because Chara did all the activities while having access to soul (Frisk) and hence have the capacity to feel compassion. This is represented by how a lot of players felt bad for doing the genocide run and yet still went ahead with it. We had the capacity for compassion but ignored it and killed anyway. Having Chara becoming a separate entity that the player can't control represents that our own dark side once unleashed to do heinous acts can no longer be controlled. So that even if the players decided to do a pacifist run afterwards it all comes to nothing as once you unleashed your own dark side there is no return. There is no choice to be a good person again as need to become a bad person to indiscriminately kill sentient beings. Ultimately this leads to Chara stealing Frisk soul, escaping to the surface and destroying humanity.

So this is my theory on how Frisk, Chara and the players relate. Frisk was the body, Chara was the inherent determination/motivation driving the story and the player was controlling Chara until either Chara fulfilled his goal of liberating monsters or destroyed humanity.