Jump to content

DreamSaturn

TSS Member
  • Content Count

    520
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by DreamSaturn


  1. 1 minute ago, Sega DogTagz said:

    If your in the business of making money, which Paramount is, than that is an easy risk to take. Popular/Marketable IP that has shown resiliency in the face of time is an easy horse to hitch your wagon to.

    As a Sonic fan, my priorities are different, and I probably wouldn't take that bet. Suffering through mediocrity to get a crack at something good down the line is a fools errand. But I'm not the one putting the startup money into this, so transplanting my ideals and priorities onto the people that are amounts to little more than tiny pittance.

    Well, Sonic fans is how we're tackling this issue, no? Personally, I'm not willing to take mediocrity for the chance of something good when it should've been done right the first time, so in that regard, it looks like we're on the same page.


  2. 2 minutes ago, Sega DogTagz said:

    We don't have to treat it like a zero sum game though. If the license proves to be profitable, it can help pave the way to an animated movie rather than hinder it. Into the Spider-verse is a perfect example of that. Everyone knows that franchise spits out live action movies and prints money, but eventually someone got off their tail and realized the demand/profitability of an animated take - and we got an awesome film from it.

    If the Sonic movie does take in its fair share of $$$, then the single biggest complaint about the film (why isn't it an animated movie) won't just go unnoticed. I'd argue the more profitable it is, the marketable the franchise is, the higher the likelihood of getting that animated film. As opposed to the movie bombing and we wait 10 years before anyone is willing to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

    I'm aware that the best chance for a future animated Sonic movie is for this to do well financially. The question is, is funding a product most of us assume is going to be bad really worth that risk? Much as I love Sonic, maybe Hollywood isn't the place for a Sonic movie to be made.


  3. 4 hours ago, Splash the Otter said:

    But if the movie does well, we're pretty much guaranteed to get a sequel instead of an animated reboot!

    I believe that's what they're banking on. The best we can hope for years down the line is that somebody we'll make a "Sorry the last few sucked" kind of movie, in Dragon Ball's case, it was everything after Evolution, for Transformers it was Bumblebee, etc etc etc.


  4. 50 minutes ago, Myst said:

    I think Paramount wanted this to be in live-action, hoping they would get a Transformers or TMNT style franchise out of it.

    Another reason why I think this was in live-action was to broaden the audience. If it was simply CGI, I think most people would write it off as 'kids stuff' and not want to see it. With a live-action setting, relatable human characters (ugh i hate saying that) and a marketable face like Jim Carrey, older teens and young adults will want to see it too. 

    I agree, a CGI movie would have been better.

    Unpopular opinion: Michael Bay should have done this. He has experience with live-action/CGI hybrids and his studio Platinum Dunes has made some pretty spectacular visual effects for TMNT & Transformers. Blur Studios, while responsible for Deadpool, has not made a movie with a talking, fully CGI character before. The visuals in the Sonic trailer feel a bit cheap here and there. If Platinum Dunes did the movie, there would have been quite a bit of eye candy, IMO.

    But Paramount is also to blame. $90 million is pretty low for a movie of this style. Smurfs, TMNT & Transformers all had budgets of $130-$160 million. A lot of this movie's budget likely went to Carrey's salary. Paramount should have invested more money into this if they wanted it to be a hit.

    That might be a holdover from when this movie was still with Sony, actually. I do remember when the movie was "confirmed" it came out that Sony was hoping to make it a trilogy, which, I wouldn't doubt that Paramount wanted even more than that.


  5. Just now, Myst said:

    Who's to say the movie WON'T be a quality product? We won't know until November 8th whether or not this movie is good or garbage.

    There are some tell-tale signs that a movie will be bad. Usually when people attached to the project have to share an article telling people to be positive about their movie, that's not a good sign.


  6. Just now, Myst said:

    I liked the 3d render that was leaked alongside the style guide art.

    I didn't see the big deal with the motion poster. I was willing to give it a chance.

    The Chris Pratt poster was a bit too cutesy for me (Sonic looked like a Care Bear imo) and I didn't like it. But compared to what we got in the trailer, I'd gladly take it now.

    I didn't like the 2D art in the style guide.

    You might have liked it, and that's all well and good. But that's not the point. The point is, most people didn't. See: everyone on social media that was laughing at them.


  7. 6 minutes ago, Myst said:

    We've had at least 3 or 4 different versions of movie Sonic leaked since December and all of them were met with criticism. It's a comically accurate representation of the fanbase these past several months.

    Because all of them were terrible. Some were less terrible than others, but all terrible nonetheless. It's not just the fans that didn't like them.


  8. To make my point, I'm going to be sharing an anecdote from my childhood:

    I still remember getting my GBA SP. It was my birthday during Kindergarten and I got Sonic Advance 3 with it. I picked the family dinner that night as Rain Forest Cafe and when I unwrapped those I was absolutely over the moon, I was a child who loved everything about Sonic. I played it for the entire car ride home, and even a good chunk of the dinner. So much playing that the GBA SP died during its first time even being on. I don't think I got any further than Sunset Hill's hub but gosh that was such a magical night.

    The colorful, fun cast of characters, the diverse, creative worlds, an unmatched sense of speed, a (usually) rocking soundtrack...there's a lot to love with Sonic!


  9. 1 minute ago, Gamecuber64 said:

    There's a rumor going around that apparently the test screening reaction (that apparently selected general audiences and studio executives were chosen to go to) was actually so bad, that it spooked Paramount.

    There's also a rumor that the design initially looked A LOT worse. Like to the point where kids were screaming and crying in the theater. This rumor also states that more test screenings were shown until they finally created something LESS creepy looking.

    Normally I firmly believe that we shouldn't believe such claims without some proof, but honestly at this point I'll take any excuse for this movie to die so...

    Maybe that should've been a sign that they should go back to the drawing board.


  10. 15 minutes ago, Tarnish said:

    Getting nothing would have been the better option. I don't get this obsession certain people have that "Sonic must have a movie, no matter the cost!".

    It's the same thing that I hear when people tell us that we should be grateful we got a game/comic/show/movie in this case at all.

    Like, no. Why take a garbage movie just because it happens to be about Sonic? Why not say that garbage isn't okay and refuse to fund it?

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.