Tara

Thinking there will be a montage of Sonic showing off his powers by traveling the world really fast. It sounds like the kind of predictable thing they'd do for humor.

Wait wh- omg

I'd be more impressed if they could at least name something some of the more specific complaints that fans have about the designs. "[We recognize that] you don't like the design" is a pretty broad statement.

One final warning for all users to argue in good faith. Comments like these are ad homenim and will result in strikes from here on out. Since this is something I've continuously seen on both sides, here's some examples of things that are not okay- "Your taste are shit." "You're part of the problem." "You just want Sonic to fail." "You're part of the lowest common denominator/you have low/no standards." "You only hate the design because it's different!" "Sonic fans complaining, lol! "You're all just being babies for not liking a piece of entertainment!" If you like the design and/or the film, great. You can explain without insulting people's tastes or intelligence. If you hate the design and/or the film, great. You can explain without insulting people's tastes or intelligence. Thanks!

Yeah, but by corporate restriction or something like the post (I think) seemed to be implying?

I guess I'd compare it to Kingdom Hearts. I actually quite like KH for its gameplay, but narratively speaking, there is no way in hell you're going to convince me to take Mickey Mouse wearing a pitch black cloak and spouting dark soliloquies (let alone the multitude of other silly things that plague the game's plot, but I digress) with even the tiniest iota of seriousness. Not even because I think Mickey is incapable of telling "serious" story lines*, but the direction in which the Kingdom Hearts series attempts to do it is so laughably off-kilter for the character that it just doesn't work. Similarly, I watch this trailer and see how transparently cookie cutter it is at its best and the only thing that really comes to mind this... ...except played 100% straight. EDIT: *By serious, I don't mean grim, dark, brooding, but that you can empathize with the protagonist without constantly reminding yourself that it's a giant, talking cartoon rodent made for children.

It doesn't really seem to have the same general vibe as a Sonic 2 track. Although Sonic 2 did have some songs with noticeably different tonalities. What an incredibly depressing world we'd live in if all our hard work and creativity would inherently be doomed to be lost to time just because it wasn't used in one video game released over 20 years ago.

In this case, I consider Sonic X's inclusion of Chris and the movie's inclusion of Tom to be two separate animals. The narrative justification is the same on paper, but when it comes things like the live action movie, I tend to think that is just the justification they throw out because it sounds like they're more invested in the artistic integrity of the story telling, rather than transparently throwing out marketing mumbo jumbo. I think the obligatory human protagonist has no real intention other than to have the actor carry a lot of the weight of the film's marketing. This tends to manifest itself a lot in the actual films. Peter Rabbit isn't a movie about the eponymous character and his friends. They are there and interact with the plot to a certain extent, but the critical focus of the movie is on Domhnall Gleeson's character winning the affections of Rose Byrne's character. The Smurfs isn't about the actual Smurfs. Again, they do interact with the plot and exist for the duration of the movie, but the core of the movie is about Niel Patrick Harris. Going really far back, Kangaroo Jack isn't about the titular Kangaroo, it's about the tense gay subtext bromance between Jerry O'Connell and Anthony Anderson as well as the former's awkwardly unfolding romantic relationship with Estella Warren's character. This is a rather extreme one, because despite being the titular character and the majority of the marketing focus, Kangaroo Jack is barely in the movie, and despite what the commercials showed, he can't even really talk. The one and only time he does is during a... rather weird dream sequence mid-way through the movie. All this to say that I will at least give the movie credit in that I'm expecting Sonic will actually have a larger role than the examples I've listed. But I'm still expecting in some way the emotional core of the movie's narrative will be focused on Tom in some way. Because the movie won't be about Sonic, but about James Marsden. Even if Sonic is instrumental in that emotional core, the crux of the character development will still be on Tom. As a disclaimer, I'm not saying with certainty that will be the case, but some basic pattern recognition makes it highly likely to me.

I wasn't on board with Detective Pikachu and still am not too fond of live action Pokémon designs. But if this movie has done anything, it's helped me appreciate Detective Pikachu innumerable times more. It may not be my cup of tea, but the kind of kind of care and attention to detail that went into it is clearly visible.

With the conversation moving at the speed it's going, there's bound to be some overlap in content posted. If people start posting it like, every other post, then it will be a problem.

No, it probably won't, and I'm going to ask you to take a step back, calm down, and stop spamming the thread by repeating these same sentiments over and over.

I personally don't like to take like/dislike ratio on YouTube TOO seriously as a metric of audience reaction. Giving it a like doesn't always necessarily mean it's good content so much as it is authentic, i.e. not a screamer or hoax. Not saying that anyone who liked this video was doing so for those reasons, but that there are more reasons to give a video a like than because you actually liked it, or that there's not every like or dislike for that matter was a conscious, well thought decision.