Rabid-Coot

It can help with the hollywood accounting too by making a profitable film make a "loss".

A year is a reasonably normal turnaround for a film and 3 months for filming does sound normal too. They'll also have a week or two scheduled for some reshoots next year. A $90 million budget does look to be on the higher end of the liveaction/cgi range (budget/WW gross): Peter Rabbit 50/350 Hop 63/183 Paddington 55/268 Padington 2 40/226 Yogi Bear 80/201 Alvin 1 60/361 Squeakquel 75/443 Chipwrecked 75/342 Road Chip 90/234 Smurfs 110/563 Smurfs 2 105/347 G-Force 150/292 Of course that $90 million is just the money to make the film there will be a seperate marketing budget on top of that. I think the generic quick maths for a films break even point is currently around 2.25-2.5 x the production budget which would be about $200-225 million on a $90 million budget.

Something about being the main version of a thing or better quality/more detailed. You could have a chair in a scene be a hero chair while being sat on changed out for a breakable stunt chair when it needs to break in a fight scene.

I havn't done anything with lens flare in two decades of photography over thousands of photos but I'm reasonably sure that lens flare shouldn't be there.

I think most that work on licenced properties do have realistic expectations about the chances that something they made crosses over into the main product or maybe even further. I just get the feeling that Penders is a rare case of someone unable to accept that something that took up a significant of their life is so disposable.

Its the nature of the business but I can see how it could be hard to accept that the biggest thing you've done in your career, something you spent over a decade working on be a combination of something that will never really be acknowledged by the main brand, something that can successfully go on without your input and be thrown away so easily.

With games industry statements you never know if no plans means not happening or we're doing something and don't want to talk about it please stay focused on our already announced products.

Thanks I probably should have used reference instead of trace. I was just thinking the inconsistant art could be from adapting the characters to different source images but I could just be over thinking it.

I'm starting to wonder if like his human art the animals are done as a trace over of photos.

All release dates are subject to change and most will have it up against something bigger. I'd assume they would consider it counter programming and that date gives them thanksgiving and to a lesser extent christmas. As for the voice actors they could retain the game cast and still use the live action tallent as the more marketable people.

Looking through the charts published in the old issues of Sonic the Comic it didn't get in to the UK top 10 in the 6 months after release I checked.

While I doubt it hits the march release on the off chance it does it feels like a date chosen to maybe pick up a few lines of being mentioned in articles about IDW Sonic that'll be appearing around then.

Because the series has a history of trying multiple gameplay styles in one game and it gives some of the other cast members something to do without having an entire levels assets fly by in seconds.

Sonic - either ditch the boost or restrict it to small sections specifically designed to make it interesting. Implament a ground attack that functions like the spin in Crash Bandicoot but based on a Sonic style ball roll. Tails/Knuckles - A series of Mario/Banjo/Yooka styled reasonably large open platforming areas that take adantage of their traversal skills. Avatar - Make some Ratchet & Clank style levels their grapple and wispons seem well suited for somthing like this. Amy - Something between God of War and the Werehog but with the hammer.