Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)

[KHCast]

This really does fall into the trend of Sonic as a franchise constantly feeling this need to reinvent itself for one stupid reason or another. Unless I’m seeing just a loud vocal minority most online seem to agree this looks creepy and unappealing, which is fair to say. Where’s the numbers to back this claim that kiddy franchises need to go live action to sell or appeal? 

[expansivelovestories]

17 minutes ago, Detective Kaito said:

This design is much, much worse than I expected. He looks fucking horrible.

Thankfully, it will have, and is surely already having, the effect of dramatically increasing an already high level of appreciation for and of all of the unique and amazing work that Sonic animators, in all mediums, have done over the years!! 

To see something so unpleasant and misguided, is able to newly highlight how well various animators and teams have excelled at envisioning and bringing to life both the main world of Sonic (including animation within the actual games), and also the various hybrid worlds of the spinoff animation series!

 

 

[Nicky Nicardo]

I dunno about everyone else, but... I don't really have a problem with people disliking this design. No one has to like it, just like no one has to hate it.

Unfortunately, it's the way SOME people go about expressing that dislike/hatred of it that just... to me, is worse than any 'bad' Sonic game or weird movie adaptation could ever be. A lof of people on the internet don't just say they dislike something, they mock it endlessly, call it the worst thing ever, and act like people are stupid for thinking it's good or even just 'meh'. And of course, that also means that the people behind the thing they don't like are talentless, or don't care at all about a franchise, or are doing it just for a greedy cashgrab, etc.

[DaddlerTheDalek]

28 minutes ago, Bucket said:

See, I don't think it looks terrible. Just different and unexpected. And personally, I don't know that I can fully formulate an opinion until I see more than a silhouette.

I feel the same way.

[Unidus]

6 hours ago, Blue Blood said:

Exactly as horrible as any Sonic fan would expect.

Woah, the Werehog has lost some weight! Good for him...

[KHCast]

14 minutes ago, Bucket said:

I dunno about everyone else, but... I don't really have a problem with people disliking this design. No one has to like it, just like no one has to hate it.

Unfortunately, it's the way SOME people go about expressing that dislike/hatred of it that just... to me, is worse than any 'bad' Sonic game or weird movie adaptation could ever be. A lof of people on the internet don't just say they dislike something, they mock it endlessly, call it the worst thing ever, and act like people are stupid for thinking it's good or even just 'meh'. And of course, that also means that the people behind the thing they don't like are talentless, or don't care at all about a franchise, or are doing it just for a greedy cashgrab, etc.

Given video game film adaptations typically come off as cashgrabs this isn’t a far fetched assumption. Especially when this is Sonic we’re talking about.

Id also argue making fun of a terrible design isn’t “going overboard “ or anything. That’s natural to do with something bad. 

And I don’t see anyone here calling people idiots for liking it. If anything I’ve seen some of the people liking the design call people that don’t “People that hate change for the sake of it.” and telling people it needs to be like this to be good, with no factual evidence to back it. And people simply aren’t a fan of that attitude as if anything a corporation does needs to be eaten up by the fans. Like the design fine, but don’t present those opinions as if they’re word of god and the only logical argument that needs to be considered 

[Nicky Nicardo]

48 minutes ago, Plasme said:

He looks fucking hideous and is completely unrecognisable from the actual Sonic design. The design is a disaster and is rightly being called out.

...I don't think he's unrecognizable from the 'actual' design at all. I think if you showed that to anyone, they'd instantly know that it's supposed to be Sonic.

And I don't see a disaster at all. I see a more realistic interpretation than I think ANYONE, including myself, was expecting... and I personally am worried about his eyes more than anything else... but a full-blown disaster with no redeeming qualities? Naw, I don't see that here.

[Tarnish]

4 minutes ago, Unidus said:

Woah, the Werehog has lost some weight! Good for him...

I miss the days when I thought the werehog was the stupidest thing they could possibly think of.

4 minutes ago, Bucket said:

they'd instantly know that it's supposed to be Sonic

Interesting wording. I think 'knowing/recognizing it's Sonic' would sound better as a response from the audience than 'knowing it's supposed to be Sonic', but that's just me.

[Nicky Nicardo]

2 minutes ago, KHCast said:

Given video game film adaptations typically come off as cashgrabs this isn’t a far fetched assumption. Especially when this is Sonic we’re talking about.

Id also argue making fun of a terrible design isn’t “going overboard “ or anything. That’s natural to do with something bad. 

And I don’t see anyone here calling people idiots for liking it. If anything I’ve seen some of the people liking the design call people that don’t “People that hate change for the sake of it.” and telling people it needs to be like this to be good, with no factual evidence to back it. And people simply aren’t a fan of that attitude as if anything a corporation does needs to be eaten up by the fans. Like the design fine, but don’t present those opinions as if they’re word of god and the only logical argument that needs to be considered 

-shrug- We have different opinions about what 'going overboard' is then. Constant mockery and shitting all over something that, to me, doesn't seem like that big of a deal... I'd call that 'going overboard'. That's just me though.

And I wasn't talking specifically about individuals here, I was more referring to 'the internet' and 'the Sonic fandom' in general - I've seen how people are acting on other sites and acting like this is the apocalypse or something. And I'm also not in the camp of people who think that people who dislike it ONLY dislike it because they hate change, or that Sonic HAS to be this way in order to be good. I don't believe that anyone should be telling anyone else that they HAVE to think a certain way about something, positive or negative.

I do believe that everything can be criticized, including this poster, and including the reaction by a lot of people on the internet.

[PeterPancake]

43 minutes ago, Sonic Fan J said:

There's analyzing every detail (something I am very familiar with as I personally do so as both a writer and an artist) and then there's calling a square a circle, and that is what happened in this comparison. Besides being blue, fuzzy, and having his trademark quill shape (though both fail to understand what quills are) there is no other comparison. Maybe it's because I'm self trained to notice this stuff, but calling a blue square a blue circle is still a false equivalency. A blue square is not blue circle no matter how you try to spin it (metaphorically since if you spin a square fast enough it will look like a circle... hmmm...) and that is the case here. Either there is some crazy stuff going on behind the scenes (always a possibility) or the twitter poster was just trying to throw out the first thing that they could that was somewhat comparable. Considering one is traditional Sonic but fuzzy and the other is a Sonic headed ripped human there is a very serious difference being actively ignored here. I'd love to see the twitter poster defend their stance but I would need someone else to track them down and ask as I pretty much don't do twitter or speak Portuguese/Spanish (sorry, I don't know which when it comes to Brazil)

This is all kinds of interesting to try and figure how to address but there is a contradictions here that is bothering me. You point out that you experienced all of this in your early childhood, which makes sense since all of that media was aimed at that target audience and not this PG-13 audience that you insist Sonic should be aimed at. Sonic is a children's franchise, always has been and always will be and believe it or not, but despite Walt Disney warping the perspective of animation being for kids in most of the west, animation can be used for so much and being for children does not mean it does not have to take itself seriously or appeal to an older audience. I don't know how much Japanese media you ingest regularly, but taking itself seriously and tackling difficult subjects is actually present still in most Japanese animation with any kind of serial narrative regardless of the age range of the intended audience, including children with many adults who consume animation enjoying so called children's media.

As for the alien thing, there is just so much wrong with that. The whole point to a Sonic the Hedgehog movie is to tell a Sonic story with Sonic as the actually selling point. It's one of the reasons I've been against a live action movie from the get go because a live action movie totally misses the point of the cartoon medium in the first place. The freedom to do anything within the artists ability which Tim Miller has said is not what they want for this movie. They are actively disregarding what Sonic is to make their movie. And for what? It makes all of no sense.

Sonic subverting expectations and norms has always been part of his charm and why so many people have issues with a cute mascot character being a cheeky jerk with an attitude problem. So his design not implying taking itself  seriously actually plays to one of Sonic's strengths; upending expectations.

Because most people don't care. Nobody at that panel was screaming in hyperbolic anger that "IT LOOKS NOTHING LIKE SONIC!!!" Because it's recognizable as Sonic. It has 6 quills, red shoes, and the exact same silhouette as the games. If you showed a random person a picture, they would clearly see Sonic the Hedgehog. And the human complaints are completely overblown, nothing about it looks like a guy in a costume. I don't see abs/a six pack and ripped thighs. His thighs are more developed than the games because he's a RUNNER. It makes perfect sense. The alternative was noodle limbs and that would have looked terrible on the big screen. The only thing that gives me pause on this design are the arms. I wish they were flesh colored but it's something I can live without. 

 

There is a huge difference between the games now and the way they were in the early 2000s. Yes, they were aimed at kids but the stories themselves were mature and layered. The characters themselves had development and actual arcs, there were REAL stakes and Eggman was not an idiot. The early 2000s era of Sonic did take itself much more seriously and the movie is pulling from that and adapting it for a wider audience. Why are so many acting so suprised that the movie wants to take a more Sci-Fi approach when Sonic WAS Sci-Fi for a good 9 years? Sonic Adventure lends itself to a blockbuster action film. People keep saying "Who is the target audience for this movie??!?" The target is everyone. But they want to send a message this this Is not a Disney movie aimed at 6 year olds, they want to go deeper than that and strive for something greater. Paramount wants out of Sonic what they got out of Transformers and Sega wants out of Sonic what Hasbro got out of Bayformers success: Brand awareness. 

 

So no, An animated kids Pixar movie is not what either Party wants.

 

As for him being an alien. What is wrong with that? He was an alien in Sonic X and in the Archie comics, he's basically like an alien in a way since he's not natural. None of the Mobians are. What is the alternative? He's from another planet because it makes sense. 

[Nicky Nicardo]

5 minutes ago, Tarnish said:

I miss the days when I thought the werehog was the stupidest thing they could possibly think of.

Interesting wording. I think 'knowing/recognizing it's Sonic' would sound better as a response from the audience than 'knowing it's supposed to be Sonic', but that's just me.

Well, I was very careful with my choice of words there - I WANTED to say 'knowing it's Sonic', but I knew that people would take issue with that and come back with something about it NOT being recognizable as Sonic. Even though I believe if you showed that poster to someone, they'd know it was Sonic BUT would also think that he looks different and weird.

[KHCast]

4 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

So no, An animated kids Pixar movie is not what either Party wants. 

Again where’s the concrete evidence here? You’re making loose anecdotal points that MAY have some weight to them, but that even is not evidence. This just comes off as a baseless assumption based off bias more than logic. It’s more than likely a cynical trend chase. Sega id believe would have not had a issue with a cgi kid’s film 

[Tarnish]

5 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

The target is everyone.

I hope you realize that while that would be a very noble goal, it never actually works? If something has an already established fanbase and you mutate the product so that the fanbase is not happy with it, your statement is already false. And that's still assuming everybody else besides the original fanbase of a franchise like it, which is never the case.

[PeterPancake]

1 minute ago, KHCast said:

Again where’s the concrete evidence here? You’re making loose anecdotal points that MAY have some weight to them, but that even is not evidence. This just comes off as a baseless assumption based off bias more than logic 

The evidence is that this movie is not an animated movie. It's pretty self explanatory. If that's what they wanted then that's what we would have gotten.

[Tarnish]

6 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

Paramount wants out of Sonic what they got out of Transformers and Sega wants out of Sonic what Hasbro got out of Bayformers success: Brand awareness.

Where you see 'brand awareness', I see 'subpar, uninspired, mediocre, all flashy and no substance mainstream gargage'.

[KHCast]

1 minute ago, PeterPancake said:

The evidence is that this movie is not an animated movie. It's pretty self explanatory. If that's what they wanted then that's what we would have gotten.

Well obviously given that we went with live action, they wanted live action, but I don’t believe at least with Sega, animated wasn’t fought for. And if it wasn’t and live action and this design was the goal from the start, the internet backlash already should tell you they don’t know their market very well 

[PeterPancake]

1 minute ago, Tarnish said:

I hope you realize that while that would be a very noble goal, it never actually works? If something has an already established fanbase and you mutate the product so that the fanbase is not happy with it, your statement is already false. And that's still assuming everybody else besides the actual fans like it, which is never the case.

The Transformers fanbase hates the Bayformers movies yet they still make billions. The TMNT fanbase hated the first Bayturtles movie and yet it still made money which greenlit a sequel (which DID try to cater to fans who hated the first one but it failed) Venom was hated by fans but now the movie as outgrossed half of all live action Spider-Man movies. The fans hating this movie won't mean Jack squat if the GENERAL AUDIENCE loves it. We've seen it proven time and time and time again. Over countless different adaptations. 

[Tarnish]

2 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

The evidence is that this movie is not an animated movie. It's pretty self explanatory. If that's what they wanted then that's what we would have gotten.

Just because someone wanted to make a movie like this doesn't mean there's an audience as well that wants it. Appanrently Disney thought there was an audience for a Solo Star Wars movie as well...wasn't actually the case.

Your logic of "well they are making it, so there's an audience for it" is so backwards it's not even funny. Like there never was a failed movie in movie history, ever.

[PeterPancake]

1 minute ago, KHCast said:

Well obviously given that we went with live action, they wanted live action, but I don’t believe at least with Sega, animated wasn’t fought for. And if it wasn’t and live action and this design was the goal from the start, the internet backlash already should tell you they don’t know their market very well 

Sega knew from the start this was never going to be an animated movie. As soon as the movie was announced wayyyy back in 2014, before a director/producers were even attached -- they announced it as a CG/Live Action hybrid. That's what was pitched to the Studio and Sega was onboard with from day one. 

[KHCast]

Just now, PeterPancake said:

The Transformers fanbase hates the Bayformers movies yet they still make billions. The TMNT fanbase hated the first Bayturtles movie and yet it still made money which greenlit a sequel (which DID try to cater to fans who hated the first one but it failed) Venom was hated by fans but now the movie as outgrossed half of all live action Spider-Man movies. The fans hating this movie won't mean Jack squat if the GENERAL AUDIENCE loves it. We've seen it proven time and time and time again. Over countless different adaptations. 

If making money is the ultimate goal, and damn artistic integrity and vision, then that’s a pretty bleak and cynical industry. Making money > being actually good?  That’s what got us the AAA game industry. People shit on cod all the time yet it makes money, fallout 76 is literally getting beaten at every corner of the internet, and still makes money. That doesn’t change they’re lazy, uninspired, bad, etc. failing upwards is a thing 

[PeterPancake]

3 minutes ago, Tarnish said:

Just because someone wanted to make a movie like this doesn't mean there's an audience as well that wants it. Appanrently Disney thought there was an audience for a Solo Star Wars movie as well...wasn't actually the case.

Your logic of "well they are making it, so there's an audience for it" is so backwards it's not even funny. Like there never was a failed movie in movie history, ever.

Of course there's an audience that wants it. Just like there is an audience that wants animated movies. That's the entire point of marketing, to get the potential audience invested In your product. 

 

 

[Tarnish]

5 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

The fans hating this movie won't mean Jack squat if the GENERAL AUDIENCE loves it.

You would be a terrible creator/artist, I hope you're aware of that.

1 minute ago, PeterPancake said:

That's the entire point of marketing, to get the potential audience invested In your product.

Tell that to Disney then regarding the Solo movie.

[Bobnik]

8 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

The Transformers fanbase hates the Bayformers movies yet they still make billions. The TMNT fanbase hated the first Bayturtles movie and yet it still made money which greenlit a sequel (which DID try to cater to fans who hated the first one but it failed) Venom was hated by fans but now the movie as outgrossed half of all live action Spider-Man movies. The fans hating this movie won't mean Jack squat if the GENERAL AUDIENCE loves it. We've seen it proven time and time and time again. Over countless different adaptations. 

So that's why we have to stop criticizing everything popular because this stuff is popular and brings money. Might as well make all paintings black squares because Malevich's painting was a big seller.

Nah mate, I don't wanna be a corporate sheep that likes everything popular and thinks everything a corporate decides is a good idea.

[KHCast]

3 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

That's the entire point of marketing, to get the potential audience invested In your product. 

Well judging by the reaction in general to this, that didn’t work out well I’m guessing 

Sonic’s already a tough sell to most outside the fanbase, so this likely only is further distancing people vs pulling them in 

[PeterPancake]

2 minutes ago, KHCast said:

If making money is the ultimate goal, and damn artistic integrity and vision, then that’s a pretty bleak and cynical industry. Making money > being actually good?  That’s what got us the AAA game industry. People shit on cod all the time yet it makes money, fallout 76 is literally getting beaten at every corner of the internet, and still makes money. That doesn’t change they’re lazy, uninspired, bad, etc. failing upwards is a thing 

Making money is the goal for damn near every product that's on the market. That shouldn't even be in the discussion because that's the endgame for ALL Studios -- including Sega. Now we have seen nothing from this movie to indicate it's being lazily slapped together. Just from the way Tim Miller and Jeff Fowler talk about the new design and all of the creative/grounded thought process that went into designing Sonic shows they CARE. And Neal Moretz does not make garbage movies. Fast and Furious may not be perfect but they are decent films made by people who give a shit about what they're making. I'm tired of hearing this mentality from the fanbase that because they don't like the creative liberties they're taking with the franchise means they are making a cash grab. Making a cash grab and changing elements of the franchise to suit the story you're telling are two COMPLETELY different things.