Is there any merit to a "mature" Sonic story?

[RaceProUK]

6 minutes ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

Except Disney-Pixar can get pretty dark in itself. 

True, but not for entire movies

[Singapore Sling]

4 hours ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

Except Disney-Pixar can get pretty dark in itself. 

It's dark in the sense of "I only watch cartoons" dark. Disney and Pixar movies are great, but there's nothing in them that's too heavy for children. I hesitate to emphasize something a small child can handle as "pretty dark."

[Killtank]

On 1/3/2016 at 0:50 PM, JohnTheDreamer said:

I'm not talking just about things like blood and swearing. Those things make ANYTHING absurd when not properly used to create effect. The Legend of Korra proved that you can get an adult story out of family-friendly programming (which was debatable in moments). But...does Sonic fit the bill? Would it require a lot of adjustment to work? And if so, what do you feel would need to be adjusted, in both the Sonic atmosphere and/or the way the mature aspects of the story are approached? My biggest question: what is the difference between "EDGY" and "good", and...why?

Yes, this is more or less a last-minute elaborate survey regarding my own story. Recent threads have given me deep concern about my nine-year worldbuilding journey.

I don't see why such an approach couldn't work. I feel like it's possible for most franchises to tackle mature subjects and themes. I do feel like the writer would need to adjust in order to make it an infusion of such topics sensible to the target demographic. I think it could work so long as the writer and developers don't choose to ignore their audience. I don't want to see the series be completely overhauled to make it happen; and I don't feel that such a strategy would even be necessary. I guess that's just my take. I don't think these games are unable to handle mature themes, but the whole thing likely wouldn't be an easy endeavor. 

I'd be open to seeing more mature Sonic material. But I'd rather not see any developers follow the same route as say Shadow the Hedgehog. I don't want the idea of "maturity" to begin and end with swearing or mindless violence. I don't want to see "grit" and "darkness" thrown it for the sake of it. In my mind, that's almost hinder the goal of having a mature dialogue in the first place. I don't feel like such a tactic will have a positive effect. In that sense, it would come across more like a set of gimmicks than anything possessing much in the way of substance. Having such things thrown in haphazardly would only prove to me that they're not trying to inject anything worthy of merit. It would just be an ugly coat of fresh paint. 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

4 hours ago, Singapore Sling said:

It's dark in the sense of "I only watch cartoons" dark. Disney and Pixar movies are great, but there's nothing in them that's too heavy for children. I hesitate to emphasize something a small child can handle as "pretty dark."

So for the sake of example, pulling guns out on children isn't too heavy for children? Because there's a few well known Disney and Pixar films where villains do just that to kids, such as the Incredibles where they break out heavy machineguns on them - in fact, the director called out complaints over it being too intense for children. And Oliver and Company has a scene near the climax where the main villain kidnaps a little girl and holds her hostage, then pulls out a gun when the main characters try to pull a scheme to rescue the girl.

Nevermind other moments, such as in Lion King where Mufasa is murdered before the audience in what is known as one of the most tearful moments in animation (and Lion King 2, for all it's plotholes, is even darker than that). And lest we forget the ever so classic Bambi where a hunter comes out of nowhere and kills the central character's mother (offscreen, but heavily shocking nonetheless). Do I need to go on? Because next up is Hunchback of Notre Dame, which is also stretch up from "pretty dark" with it's use of religious fanaticism, racism, sexual lust, and several attempts at murder (one which succeeds right at the beginning of the movie when the main character's mother is killed by the villain) that went over a lot of kids heads.

Oh, and then there's the Brave Little Toaster - you can't watch that film and tell me it isn't intense given the tone and how close the characters (which are inanimate objects given life) come pretty close to dying on several occasions. Heck, some minor characters actually do die onscreen (in a technical sense).

Disney-Pixar movies aren't exactly "I only watch cartoons" dark when they hit that end of the spectrum - while other cartoons have made some dark moments, Disney films pull off many intense things with a lot more frequency and realism, and with elements and maturity (insofar as how people are defining "maturity" here) you wouldn't see very much in other cartoons at the time (at least until Dreamworks competes with it). The amount of death scenes, and questioning of these scenes being for children, is a testament of that.

[Singapore Sling]

...None of those are too dark for children, no.

That's why they're in mass marketed, mainstream-friendly children's films. My niece is four and ADORES The Incredibles to the point where my trade of the first arc of the tie-in comic is one of her favorite books that I own. She clearly has not been traumatized by the villains' willingness to kill children, and I've watched Disney films with her where the closest she gets to any sort of backlash toward the heavier scenes is a "Wow, that's scary!", but it's always in a way where she's clearly not ACTUALLY emotionally hurt by it as much as she's just caught up in the spectacle. None of that stuff is too much for a kid to handle. 

Children should not be condescended to just because movies for them are too intense for you. If YOU think that those above things are too much for children to handle, when I've sat with a child who could handle that shit no problem (and my niece comes from about as suburban whitebread simple and safe an environment that you can get), then children are not the ones this stuff is too hard for. 

I've watched my niece, just through these past months, cope with and understand the deaths of both her own little sister and my mother, her beloved grandmother, in quick succession. This obviously did not leave her happy, but you know what I did when she brought it up? I talked to her like she was a person, and we got to be sad together, and neither of us sat fetal on the floor unable to handle it. I've seen a four year old handle your "dark" Disney movies with no problem, and talk through real life darkness more intense than any Disney movie and still face life with the same tenacity she always has.

Kids are not millennial, Cartoon Cartoon-era nerds. They're actually capable of handling things that happen to be drawn with slightly darker color and storyboarded at slightly intense angles without having to prove to people HOW intense those things are.

I genuinely don't know how you expected this argument, of whether or not these things presented in kid's films are too much for kids to handle when kids watch these movies every day, to go. I've watched kids watch these types of Disney movies, not just recent ones, and they are not traumatized. 

[RaceProUK]

11 hours ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

So for the sake of example, pulling guns out on children isn't too heavy for children?

One of the all-time great children's movies, 1968's Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, has a character who's main role is to kidnap children and imprison them. And along with so many of your other examples, the film was rated by the BBFC as Universal (Suitable for all). So no, that isn't too heavy for children.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

53 minutes ago, Singapore Sling said:

...None of those are too dark for children, no.

That's why they're in mass marketed, mainstream-friendly children's films. My niece is four and ADORES The Incredibles to the point where my trade of the first arc of the tie-in comic is one of her favorite books that I own. She clearly has not been traumatized by the villains' willingness to kill children, and I've watched Disney films with her where the closest she gets to any sort of backlash toward the heavier scenes is a "Wow, that's scary!", but it's always in a way where she's clearly not ACTUALLY emotionally hurt by it as much as she's just caught up in the spectacle. None of that stuff is too much for a kid to handle. 

Children should not be condescended to just because movies for them are too intense for you. If YOU think that those above things are too much for children to handle, when I've sat with a child who could handle that shit no problem (and my niece comes from about as suburban whitebread simple and safe an environment that you can get), then children are not the ones this stuff is too hard for.

Okay, for the record, you clearly don't know what I think or what I find "too intense," so stop acting like you do.

For one, I actually don't think they're too much for children - this is just the typical stuff people acting like moral guardians get up in arms about. And whether or not your niece adores or can handle these things, that's a very narrow sample that doesn't actually refute the point I'm making. Because while your niece might be able to handle it can be countered by someone else's niece might actually be shocked and horrified from it, so that holds very little water.

All this was for is for the sake of an argument over where the line was between being okay or too dark for children, and where that line could stand for Sonic. Not a rant about keeping kids safe from violence in entertainment.

Quote

I genuinely don't know how you expected this argument, of whether or not these things presented in kid's films are too much for kids to handle when kids watch these movies every day, to go. I've watched kids watch these types of Disney movies, not just recent ones, and they are not traumatized.

 

What I expected this argument to create a dialogue to where people could understand what is would or wouldn't be considered "too dark" for something like Sonic would be able to pull off like the above examples. Not for someone like you who 1) doesn't know anything my position on the subject, 2) talks down and patronize me about it as if I'm too fickle-minded to know what kids can and can't handle, and 3) completely miss the point I was making to do all of the above. Because that's practically why I brought up those movies that were actually geared towards children in the first place, if the fact that we're talking about Disney wasn't obvious enough.

[Singapore Sling]

3 hours ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

Okay, for the record, you clearly don't know what I think or what I find "too intense," so stop acting like you do. For one, I actually don't think they're too much for children - this is just the typical stuff people acting like moral guardians get up in arms about.

If you don't think they're too intense for children, don't bring them up as if they are. If you're bringing up stuff and giving reasons why it's too intense, why SHOULDN'T I act like I know? Why are you even arguing on behalf of other people that you disagree with?

And please, my niece has little friends. She's far from the only sample I've seen for this. This stuff is not intense, like at all, for the kids it's aimed toward. The fact that most of these movies are rigorously focus tested would attest to that. 

Kids can handle this stuff. This stuff is not "dark."

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

58 minutes ago, Singapore Sling said:

If you don't think they're too intense for children, don't bring them up as if they are.

I never did, actually. All I said at the time was that Disney-Pixar films can get pretty dark and that was it. You brought up the subject of how it wasn't too dark for kids, and I only gave examples for the sake of discussion and mentioned how some people questioned and complained some movie scenes were too intense for kids.

But never did I say I believed they were too intense for kids. So I'd kindly ask you to stop putting words in my mouth like you know what I think, and actually read what I'm saying.

58 minutes ago, Singapore Sling said:

If you're bringing up stuff and giving reasons why it's too intense, why SHOULDN'T I act like I know? Why are you even arguing on behalf of other people that you disagree with?

Did you completely miss where I said it was for the sake of example? Or that this was to create dialogue over something like this for Sonic?

And if it wasn't obvious enough by the fact that I don't agree with these people, I'm not arguing on their behalf. No where was I playing devil's advocate here.

58 minutes ago, Singapore Sling said:

 And please, my niece has little friends. She's far from the only sample I've seen for this. This stuff is not intense, like at all, for the kids it's aimed toward. The fact that most of these movies are rigorously focus tested would attest to that. 

Kids can handle this stuff. This stuff is not "dark."

You think the people who complain about these things care about whether your niece and friends have seen this or how focus tested these things are?

And no, this stuff definitely dark. No if, ands, or buts about it. It's just not inappropriate for the group it's marketed towards, so it's not a bad thing.

[PandoloFox]

I think some clarification on what you guys would consider "too dark" for children is needed. I personaly at the age of 12 read animal farm and watched chindlers list and it didnt bother me. And if the writer Don Bluth is to be believed then children can accept anything dark as long as there is a happy ending ( which sonic is in no shortage of )

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I think a better clarification is whether its appropriate or not. Many a subject that is "too dark" for kids has been done for kids, things all the way up to genocide, but are done in a way that is acceptable in a younger audience. Gets real difficult to clarify what isn't appropriate so long as you can pull it off without the gory horror that should come with it.

[PandoloFox]

I can agree to that, but its not like anyone is asking for sonic to include more mature visuals( rape, gore and etc ).

[Singapore Sling]

3 hours ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

I think a better clarification is whether its appropriate or not. Many a subject that is "too dark" for kids has been done for kids, things all the way up to genocide, but are done in a way that is acceptable in a younger audience. 

I'll apologize for misconstruing you, but you have to understand statements like this make it easy to. It's the fact this is taking place in a context where people want children's media they're indulging past the age they're meant to to cater to them. Every argument about what kids can and can't handle is never ABOUT the children in these sorts of threads, they're always meant to be able to benefit the adults. And that bothers me, because it's silly. It's fine to criticize or not like portions of a children's franchise if someone enjoys it, but I feel like INSISTING it has to be a certain way, or that it CAN be a certain way, because you're the peripheral audience and then pointing at children and saying they can handle it is never for the benefit of the child, always for the benefit of the adult who doesn't want to move on.

So I appreciate the sarcastic quotes around the too dark moniker, but come on. Granted, I'm biased because I'm super down with the Boom cartoon and if that's literally all the franchise was for a while, I'd have no complaints. But this stuff is not dark at all as much as it's just...real. I don't think a base level acknowledgement of reality really qualifies as "dark" in a media context. It's definitely a matter of us having different values or, at the least, definitions of the term in this context. But no, I don't consider base level acceptance and acknowledgement of how reality works to be dark, and in a conversation about whether or not a kid's thing can be "mature", insisting basic reality as darkness is still something I think is ridiculous...especially because it's not, ultimately, discussed for the benefit of a child. 

But my cousins and I also watched horror movies with permanent death or lacking of anything resembling a happy ending before we were even ten years old and it didn't really do anything, so I don't buy the Don Bluth thing either. Kids' tastes are as varied as adults, kids like being scared, and kids can handle basic acknowledgement that the world isn't sunshine and rainbows. Kids from like 8 and up at the lowest can handle a classic slasher, and probably by age 12 even the gorier movies probably aren't going to fuck them up, on average, too badly. Obviously you'd never want to show a kid below 16 or so something like A Serbian Film, but anything that doesn't go to that extremity will probably be fine. A lot of ADULT stuff isn't really all that dark, or even too dark for kids. And yeah, I don't think of the original Halloween as a particularly dark movie either. 

(Also, given children will be swearing on the playground, or HEARING swearing on the playground, the exact moment they can and always have, what's so wrong about a shallow kids' game ALSO shallowly swearing like Shadow the Hedgehog did? It'd probably be truer to a kid's experience than most of the other Sonic games.)

[PandoloFox]

11 minutes ago, Singapore Sling said:

I'll apologize for misconstruing you, but you have to understand statements like this make it easy to. It's the fact this is taking place in a context where people want children's media they're indulging past the age they're meant to to cater to them. Every argument about what kids can and can't handle is never ABOUT the children in these sorts of threads, they're always meant to be able to benefit the adults. And that bothers me, because it's silly. It's fine to criticize or not like portions of a children's franchise if someone enjoys it, but I feel like INSISTING it has to be a certain way, or that it CAN be a certain way, because you're the peripheral audience and then pointing at children and saying they can handle it is never for the benefit of the child, always for the benefit of the adult who doesn't want to move on.

So I appreciate the sarcastic quotes around the too dark moniker, but come on. Granted, I'm biased because I'm super down with the Boom cartoon and if that's literally all the franchise was for a while, I'd have no complaints. But this stuff is not dark at all as much as it's just...real. I don't think a base level acknowledgement of reality really qualifies as "dark" in a media context. It's definitely a matter of us having different values or, at the least, definitions of the term in this context. But no, I don't consider base level acceptance and acknowledgement of how reality works to be dark, and in a conversation about whether or not a kid's thing can be "mature", insisting basic reality as darkness is still something I think is ridiculous...especially because it's not, ultimately, discussed for the benefit of a child. 

But my cousins and I also watched horror movies with permanent death or lacking of anything resembling a happy ending before we were even ten years old and it didn't really do anything, so I don't buy the Don Bluth thing either. Kids' tastes are as varied as adults, kids like being scared, and kids can handle basic acknowledgement that the world isn't sunshine and rainbows. Kids from like 8 and up at the lowest can handle a classic slasher, and probably by age 12 even the gorier movies probably aren't going to fuck them up, on average, too badly. Obviously you'd never want to show a kid below 16 or so something like A Serbian Film, but anything that doesn't go to that extremity will probably be fine. A lot of ADULT stuff isn't really all that dark, or even too dark for kids. And yeah, I don't think of the original Halloween as a particularly dark movie either. 

(Also, given children will be swearing on the playground, or HEARING swearing on the playground, the exact moment they can and always have, what's so wrong about a shallow kids' game ALSO shallowly swearing like Shadow the Hedgehog did? It'd probably be truer to a kid's experience than most of the other Sonic games.)

There is nothing wrong with aiming at children exclusively. Nobody here from what i know argued over whats best for kids, but instead argued over what they would want to be included that would still be fit for kids.

And its funny that you enjoy Sonic boom, according to an interview with Bill it wasnt intended to be a dumb show for kids but rather please adults with some smart humor. 

 

[Singapore Sling]

Sonic Boom goes back and forth between childish stupidity and jaded adult apathy pretty regularly. It's not just one thing constantly, you can be different tones at different times. 

Your other reply helps my point. Discussing what children's media "should" do for the benefit of adults instead of children is inherently silly, especially if you're not a parent. I feel like with children's media, you're either taking it for what it is or leaving it behind. Not that you CAN'T criticize an aspect of it, or explain why you don't like it, but yeah. I like Sonic as it is right now, as a weird clusterfuck of dumb and occasionally smart comedy with amusing characters and a vague mythology. I also liked Sonic when it was shallowly self serious, because all of it is interesting to watch, often divorced from its actual quality. The idea of wanting something made for a child to improve in a way that would make me, an adult, like it more is ridiculous, since even if I only restricted myself to kid's media, Sonic is so basic in its archetypal qualities that pretty much ANY property can fit the bill.

Sonic's weird level of b-movie, at best, quality has always been part of the charm. I actually do feel like making it more coherent would kill some of its appeal.

[PandoloFox]

My second reply is just me being genuinly amused by what you said you enjoyed out of boom and the actual intention. I find the situation comedic, nothing ill intended.

I dont understand why you think its silly. according to me its even more confusing that you would still watch/play something that you dont find to your taste. Why would you argue for something to be for kids and then as an adult watch it. you are belittling the medium you are genuinly enjoying. At least I know that I enjoy sonic but wants it to improve so that I can enjoy it even more ( without trampling on kids ). Its not discussing it to just benefit adults when I consider kids as well. 

[E-122-Psi]

I think the remedy the likes of Disney have is that it's darker content is often applied in a manner that still compliments the universe and tone of it's respective story rather than contradicting it. The Incredibles' format mostly applies to cliches of super hero stories, both comical and serious.

This is why I find Sonic Adventure 1 a decent attempt at a more serious story, since not only is it not overdone and a lot of whimsy is maintained (it was designed to introduce a proper story to the Sonic games after all), but the manner the heavier content is applied is actually still connected to the standard Sonic aesthetics. E-102 Gamma is probably one of the most successful attempts at a melancholy stories in the franchise, but despite it's poignant story, it's still mainly just a deconstruction of the badnik mythos involving a clunky HAL-speaking robot. To many, that's actually why it's such a gut punch.

Too many stories in later games and alternate media have to completely turn the series inside out to make that emotional story. It's often not so much a serious story about Sonic, but a serious story harking to another medium that happens to have Sonic in it.

[PandoloFox]

And honestly, I want to avoid psychological topics. In a topic like this you are basicaly telling people that wants sonic to improve that they dont behave like adults. I could understand this concern if you were an adult who didnt watch cartoons. But you are not, you are an adult sonic fan just like me enjoying a "childrens" cartoon while arguing that people like me should grow up for wanting their cartoon to improve. Its contradictory to what you yourself are doing. Cause the actual argument would land at that both of us should grow up and stop watching said medium

[E-122-Psi]

The sad truth is, a lot of adults do love watching cartoons, and not even just adult cartoons. Check out the periphery demographic of Winnie the Pooh or My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic for example. There's a charm stories can have that appeals to adults without having to be 'mature' about it.

[Singapore Sling]

4 hours ago, PandoloFox said:

And honestly, I want to avoid psychological topics. In a topic like this you are basicaly telling people that wants sonic to improve that they dont behave like adults. I could understand this concern if you were an adult who didnt watch cartoons. But you are not, you are an adult sonic fan just like me enjoying a "childrens" cartoon while arguing that people like me should grow up for wanting their cartoon to improve. Its contradictory to what you yourself are doing. Cause the actual argument would land at that both of us should grow up and stop watching said medium

Things appeal to people for different reasons. I love Sonic and don't feel like it HAS to change. If it does change, sure, I'll tag along and see if I like it. But if I don't like it, I don't see why I would talk about why it should change back to how I like it. I'd just move on to something else. I don't indulge things I don't like. 

It's a franchise for children, they matter first. The things that appeal to me about Sonic don't hinge on it being this emotionally driven action/adventure story (though the fact it IS that in some parts of the franchise, but not all, adds to the appeal), but are more about the greater whole of the franchise and the multiple creative decisions that have been made being interesting to watch, read, or play. If there's a part of Sonic I don't like (say, Ken Penders comics or the bulk of Sonic X), I just leave it be. I don't sit around thinking about how better it could be so I can like it. 

A franchise that's been both a story about rebelling against a dystopia AND a cynical comedy descending from multi-cam sitcom writing is too interesting for me to want it to be too coherent in any one given direction.

[PandoloFox]

3 minutes ago, Singapore Sling said:

Things appeal to people for different reasons. I love Sonic and don't feel like it HAS to change. If it does change, sure, I'll tag along and see if I like it. But if I don't like it, I don't see why I would talk about why it should change back to how I like it. I'd just move on to something else. I don't indulge things I don't like. 

It's a franchise for children, they matter first. The things that appeal to me about Sonic don't hinge on it being this emotionally driven action/adventure story (though the fact it IS that in some parts of the franchise, but not all, adds to the appeal), but are more about the greater whole of the franchise and the multiple creative decisions that have been made being interesting to watch, read, or play. If there's a part of Sonic I don't like (say, Ken Penders comics or the bulk of Sonic X), I just leave it be. I don't sit around thinking about how better it could be so I can like it. 

A franchise that's been both a story about rebelling against a dystopia AND a cynical comedy descending from multi-cam sitcom writing is too interesting for me to want it to be too coherent in any one given direction.

But you are actively arguing why it shouldnt change while using "kids" as a reason to why it should stay the same while having the motivation of you already enjoying the medium. I find it strange that you would move on, sonic has changed a lot during the years and you seem to still be here.

And how do you know that the children are actively enjoying what we have now? If that truly was your intention, this kind of argument wouldnt happen. you are actively arguing that we as adults have no say in the matter because its for children while justifying your own taste because its for children. You are using them as a shield for your argument while saying that we dont represent them. You are contradicting yourself on so many levels here.

And who is saying that I or anyone else are watching mediums we dont like? Nobody argued that boom should disapear, it was argued that the writing for the main sonic games would be better with improved writing.

[Azul]

What is dark, really?

[PandoloFox]

1 minute ago, Azul said:

What is dark, really?

Showing consequences of actions, that not everything is a matter of white and black. Being able to understand and sympathise with bad actions taken and showing more damaged characters. At least, thats how i define "dark" when it comes to stories.

[Azul]

47 minutes ago, PandoloFox said:

Showing consequences of actions, that not everything is a matter of white and black. Being able to understand and sympathise with bad actions taken and showing more damaged characters. At least, thats how i define "dark" when it comes to stories.

As Sing Sling has said, that's not being dark, that's being real. Many a kid media shoehorn some aesop about how power corrupts or how smoking is bad or why cheaters never prosper and still retain their relatively light atmosphere. For a good bulk of the 90s, they made it a point to teach children the world isn't all that's cracked up to be through totally mondo rad hammy shows, like AoStH. Does the pressence of Scrath and Tails, who's even younger than today's version, smoking make it a darker show?

Sympathetic villiany isn't dark in and of itself. Having someone doing something bad because they have to, or feel they have to, doesn't detract from the tone of something. It sounds like you're equating dark with complex. A lot of villiany in kids stuff is the result some life scarring accident and yet the medium they appear in is still light-hearted at best. Spider-Man only became a super hero because he let his uncle get killed and yet he's considered one of the most kid friendly franchises of our time. Granted, the franchise has immense range but that doesn't change that there's been several kids cartoons about a guy who punches other guys because another guy shot one of his favorite guys.

[Jhreamer]

4 hours ago, Singapore Sling said:

I also liked Sonic when it was shallowly self serious, because all of it is interesting to watch, often divorced from its actual quality. The idea of wanting something made for a child to improve in a way that would make me, an adult, like it more is ridiculous, since even if I only restricted myself to kid's media, Sonic is so basic in its archetypal qualities that pretty much ANY property can fit the bill.

Sonic's weird level of b-movie, at best, quality has always been part of the charm. I actually do feel like making it more coherent would kill some of its appeal.

Very interesting view. I wouldn't say this is an idea I was "afraid of", just more of something that could potentially bite Sonic stories that attempt to shoot for "a movie" Avengers-esque quality. Not that it makes you a 'problem fan'.