Jump to content

Tara

SSMB Moderator
  • Content Count

    14,865
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    39

Reputation Activity

  1. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from DaddlerTheDalek in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    I've mentioned in this thread before that I agree with the general philosophy of designing the movie with more than just the core fanbase in mind, if for no other reason than the fact that making an esoteric work that is overwrought with lore and internal references that only a niche population will understand has a tendency to lead to stilted writing and unsatisfying buildup and payoff.  I think if you make a good film, both fans and people who have never even heard of Sonic will enjoy it because it will have all the proper buildup and resolution that a good movie tends to have.  "Pleasing the fans" and "pleasing general audiences" are really not a mutually exclusive goal.
    But that doesn't mean you need to focus group test it to the point of being an abominable mess that overflows with cliche writing, vapid dialogue, and generic set pieces.  That's not even mentioning the horrible design.  What the recent news indicates is that they essentially did just that, which is what we've been saying since the inception of this threasd is a bad thing that leads to bad movies.  Like even ignoring the various problems with this type of focus group testing that have been documented for ages, I don't understand why there are people in this thread who see "they made something commercially viable at the expense of making an actually enjoyable movie" as something that we're supposed to laud them for?
    And then they make statements like "people liked the TMNT and Transformers designs" not realizing that, like, no.  People didn't.  Perhaps they think people did because they can somehow ignore the fact that both those films were heavily marketed to put it mildly.  Like, they put adverts for those films on everything.  TV and radio commercials, billboards, YouTube ads, toy lines, fast food toy lines, everywhere.  If you have a budget for that kind of mass marketing, a high turnout is almost inevitable.  And on a personal note, I've never met one single solitary person, even people that liked TMNT 2014, would have said "Yeah, I like it because the design is more realistic and appeals to me."  Like, for the most part, I see people who like it in spite of the designs.  And even that is a small number.
  2. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from DaddlerTheDalek in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    And we've been arguing for the past two years that it's a BAD rationale.  I'm not sure what you think this changes?
  3. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from Jango in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    I mean, yeah, I get that.  I'm just saying, his overall point that people were skeptical about the quality of the film because of media trends still stands even if the particulars are questionable.
    My mistake.  I apologize.
    I imagine Sony's partnership with Sega was only in talks at the time and not in writing.  By the time the first design came around, they had probably already signed an agreement.  I'm sure there are clauses in whatever agreement that give Paramount a lot more creative control over the movie than we would like, but I don't think whatever contract they have means that Sega can't pull the plug on the project.  More likely, I think, is that they calculated how much money that would be lost if they did, and decided it was better to let it go and hope for the best than to cancel the deal out right.
  4. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from Nina Cortex Jovahexeon in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    If anything, the fact that we have that comic is precisely WHY so many people didn't like the concept for the movie in the first place.
  5. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from AdventChild in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    If anything, the fact that we have that comic is precisely WHY so many people didn't like the concept for the movie in the first place.
  6. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from MainJP in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    If anything, the fact that we have that comic is precisely WHY so many people didn't like the concept for the movie in the first place.
  7. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from Wonderworld Ultima in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    If anything, the fact that we have that comic is precisely WHY so many people didn't like the concept for the movie in the first place.
  8. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from Syntax Speedway in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    If anything, the fact that we have that comic is precisely WHY so many people didn't like the concept for the movie in the first place.
  9. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from Ryannumber1gamer in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    If anything, the fact that we have that comic is precisely WHY so many people didn't like the concept for the movie in the first place.
  10. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from FFWF in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    I've mentioned in this thread before that I agree with the general philosophy of designing the movie with more than just the core fanbase in mind, if for no other reason than the fact that making an esoteric work that is overwrought with lore and internal references that only a niche population will understand has a tendency to lead to stilted writing and unsatisfying buildup and payoff.  I think if you make a good film, both fans and people who have never even heard of Sonic will enjoy it because it will have all the proper buildup and resolution that a good movie tends to have.  "Pleasing the fans" and "pleasing general audiences" are really not a mutually exclusive goal.
    But that doesn't mean you need to focus group test it to the point of being an abominable mess that overflows with cliche writing, vapid dialogue, and generic set pieces.  That's not even mentioning the horrible design.  What the recent news indicates is that they essentially did just that, which is what we've been saying since the inception of this threasd is a bad thing that leads to bad movies.  Like even ignoring the various problems with this type of focus group testing that have been documented for ages, I don't understand why there are people in this thread who see "they made something commercially viable at the expense of making an actually enjoyable movie" as something that we're supposed to laud them for?
    And then they make statements like "people liked the TMNT and Transformers designs" not realizing that, like, no.  People didn't.  Perhaps they think people did because they can somehow ignore the fact that both those films were heavily marketed to put it mildly.  Like, they put adverts for those films on everything.  TV and radio commercials, billboards, YouTube ads, toy lines, fast food toy lines, everywhere.  If you have a budget for that kind of mass marketing, a high turnout is almost inevitable.  And on a personal note, I've never met one single solitary person, even people that liked TMNT 2014, would have said "Yeah, I like it because the design is more realistic and appeals to me."  Like, for the most part, I see people who like it in spite of the designs.  And even that is a small number.
  11. Thumbs Up
    Tara reacted to Monkey Destruction Switch in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    I don't think anyone is asking for strict fidelity to the dialogue style of Sonic games, but rather to stick closer to the original premise, ideas, designs, characters, etc. of Sonic.
  12. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from NegaMetallix in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    I've mentioned in this thread before that I agree with the general philosophy of designing the movie with more than just the core fanbase in mind, if for no other reason than the fact that making an esoteric work that is overwrought with lore and internal references that only a niche population will understand has a tendency to lead to stilted writing and unsatisfying buildup and payoff.  I think if you make a good film, both fans and people who have never even heard of Sonic will enjoy it because it will have all the proper buildup and resolution that a good movie tends to have.  "Pleasing the fans" and "pleasing general audiences" are really not a mutually exclusive goal.
    But that doesn't mean you need to focus group test it to the point of being an abominable mess that overflows with cliche writing, vapid dialogue, and generic set pieces.  That's not even mentioning the horrible design.  What the recent news indicates is that they essentially did just that, which is what we've been saying since the inception of this threasd is a bad thing that leads to bad movies.  Like even ignoring the various problems with this type of focus group testing that have been documented for ages, I don't understand why there are people in this thread who see "they made something commercially viable at the expense of making an actually enjoyable movie" as something that we're supposed to laud them for?
    And then they make statements like "people liked the TMNT and Transformers designs" not realizing that, like, no.  People didn't.  Perhaps they think people did because they can somehow ignore the fact that both those films were heavily marketed to put it mildly.  Like, they put adverts for those films on everything.  TV and radio commercials, billboards, YouTube ads, toy lines, fast food toy lines, everywhere.  If you have a budget for that kind of mass marketing, a high turnout is almost inevitable.  And on a personal note, I've never met one single solitary person, even people that liked TMNT 2014, would have said "Yeah, I like it because the design is more realistic and appeals to me."  Like, for the most part, I see people who like it in spite of the designs.  And even that is a small number.
  13. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from Monkey Destruction Switch in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    I've mentioned in this thread before that I agree with the general philosophy of designing the movie with more than just the core fanbase in mind, if for no other reason than the fact that making an esoteric work that is overwrought with lore and internal references that only a niche population will understand has a tendency to lead to stilted writing and unsatisfying buildup and payoff.  I think if you make a good film, both fans and people who have never even heard of Sonic will enjoy it because it will have all the proper buildup and resolution that a good movie tends to have.  "Pleasing the fans" and "pleasing general audiences" are really not a mutually exclusive goal.
    But that doesn't mean you need to focus group test it to the point of being an abominable mess that overflows with cliche writing, vapid dialogue, and generic set pieces.  That's not even mentioning the horrible design.  What the recent news indicates is that they essentially did just that, which is what we've been saying since the inception of this threasd is a bad thing that leads to bad movies.  Like even ignoring the various problems with this type of focus group testing that have been documented for ages, I don't understand why there are people in this thread who see "they made something commercially viable at the expense of making an actually enjoyable movie" as something that we're supposed to laud them for?
    And then they make statements like "people liked the TMNT and Transformers designs" not realizing that, like, no.  People didn't.  Perhaps they think people did because they can somehow ignore the fact that both those films were heavily marketed to put it mildly.  Like, they put adverts for those films on everything.  TV and radio commercials, billboards, YouTube ads, toy lines, fast food toy lines, everywhere.  If you have a budget for that kind of mass marketing, a high turnout is almost inevitable.  And on a personal note, I've never met one single solitary person, even people that liked TMNT 2014, would have said "Yeah, I like it because the design is more realistic and appeals to me."  Like, for the most part, I see people who like it in spite of the designs.  And even that is a small number.
  14. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from Blue Blood in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    I've mentioned in this thread before that I agree with the general philosophy of designing the movie with more than just the core fanbase in mind, if for no other reason than the fact that making an esoteric work that is overwrought with lore and internal references that only a niche population will understand has a tendency to lead to stilted writing and unsatisfying buildup and payoff.  I think if you make a good film, both fans and people who have never even heard of Sonic will enjoy it because it will have all the proper buildup and resolution that a good movie tends to have.  "Pleasing the fans" and "pleasing general audiences" are really not a mutually exclusive goal.
    But that doesn't mean you need to focus group test it to the point of being an abominable mess that overflows with cliche writing, vapid dialogue, and generic set pieces.  That's not even mentioning the horrible design.  What the recent news indicates is that they essentially did just that, which is what we've been saying since the inception of this threasd is a bad thing that leads to bad movies.  Like even ignoring the various problems with this type of focus group testing that have been documented for ages, I don't understand why there are people in this thread who see "they made something commercially viable at the expense of making an actually enjoyable movie" as something that we're supposed to laud them for?
    And then they make statements like "people liked the TMNT and Transformers designs" not realizing that, like, no.  People didn't.  Perhaps they think people did because they can somehow ignore the fact that both those films were heavily marketed to put it mildly.  Like, they put adverts for those films on everything.  TV and radio commercials, billboards, YouTube ads, toy lines, fast food toy lines, everywhere.  If you have a budget for that kind of mass marketing, a high turnout is almost inevitable.  And on a personal note, I've never met one single solitary person, even people that liked TMNT 2014, would have said "Yeah, I like it because the design is more realistic and appeals to me."  Like, for the most part, I see people who like it in spite of the designs.  And even that is a small number.
  15. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from Ryannumber1gamer in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    I've mentioned in this thread before that I agree with the general philosophy of designing the movie with more than just the core fanbase in mind, if for no other reason than the fact that making an esoteric work that is overwrought with lore and internal references that only a niche population will understand has a tendency to lead to stilted writing and unsatisfying buildup and payoff.  I think if you make a good film, both fans and people who have never even heard of Sonic will enjoy it because it will have all the proper buildup and resolution that a good movie tends to have.  "Pleasing the fans" and "pleasing general audiences" are really not a mutually exclusive goal.
    But that doesn't mean you need to focus group test it to the point of being an abominable mess that overflows with cliche writing, vapid dialogue, and generic set pieces.  That's not even mentioning the horrible design.  What the recent news indicates is that they essentially did just that, which is what we've been saying since the inception of this threasd is a bad thing that leads to bad movies.  Like even ignoring the various problems with this type of focus group testing that have been documented for ages, I don't understand why there are people in this thread who see "they made something commercially viable at the expense of making an actually enjoyable movie" as something that we're supposed to laud them for?
    And then they make statements like "people liked the TMNT and Transformers designs" not realizing that, like, no.  People didn't.  Perhaps they think people did because they can somehow ignore the fact that both those films were heavily marketed to put it mildly.  Like, they put adverts for those films on everything.  TV and radio commercials, billboards, YouTube ads, toy lines, fast food toy lines, everywhere.  If you have a budget for that kind of mass marketing, a high turnout is almost inevitable.  And on a personal note, I've never met one single solitary person, even people that liked TMNT 2014, would have said "Yeah, I like it because the design is more realistic and appeals to me."  Like, for the most part, I see people who like it in spite of the designs.  And even that is a small number.
  16. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from Polkadi~☆ in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    And we've been arguing for the past two years that it's a BAD rationale.  I'm not sure what you think this changes?
  17. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from Lord-Dreamerz in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    And we've been arguing for the past two years that it's a BAD rationale.  I'm not sure what you think this changes?
  18. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from AdventChild in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    I've mentioned in this thread before that I agree with the general philosophy of designing the movie with more than just the core fanbase in mind, if for no other reason than the fact that making an esoteric work that is overwrought with lore and internal references that only a niche population will understand has a tendency to lead to stilted writing and unsatisfying buildup and payoff.  I think if you make a good film, both fans and people who have never even heard of Sonic will enjoy it because it will have all the proper buildup and resolution that a good movie tends to have.  "Pleasing the fans" and "pleasing general audiences" are really not a mutually exclusive goal.
    But that doesn't mean you need to focus group test it to the point of being an abominable mess that overflows with cliche writing, vapid dialogue, and generic set pieces.  That's not even mentioning the horrible design.  What the recent news indicates is that they essentially did just that, which is what we've been saying since the inception of this threasd is a bad thing that leads to bad movies.  Like even ignoring the various problems with this type of focus group testing that have been documented for ages, I don't understand why there are people in this thread who see "they made something commercially viable at the expense of making an actually enjoyable movie" as something that we're supposed to laud them for?
    And then they make statements like "people liked the TMNT and Transformers designs" not realizing that, like, no.  People didn't.  Perhaps they think people did because they can somehow ignore the fact that both those films were heavily marketed to put it mildly.  Like, they put adverts for those films on everything.  TV and radio commercials, billboards, YouTube ads, toy lines, fast food toy lines, everywhere.  If you have a budget for that kind of mass marketing, a high turnout is almost inevitable.  And on a personal note, I've never met one single solitary person, even people that liked TMNT 2014, would have said "Yeah, I like it because the design is more realistic and appeals to me."  Like, for the most part, I see people who like it in spite of the designs.  And even that is a small number.
  19. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from AdventChild in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    And we've been arguing for the past two years that it's a BAD rationale.  I'm not sure what you think this changes?
  20. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from GamerGirl54321 in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    And we've been arguing for the past two years that it's a BAD rationale.  I'm not sure what you think this changes?
  21. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from MidoChaosHedgehog in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    I've mentioned in this thread before that I agree with the general philosophy of designing the movie with more than just the core fanbase in mind, if for no other reason than the fact that making an esoteric work that is overwrought with lore and internal references that only a niche population will understand has a tendency to lead to stilted writing and unsatisfying buildup and payoff.  I think if you make a good film, both fans and people who have never even heard of Sonic will enjoy it because it will have all the proper buildup and resolution that a good movie tends to have.  "Pleasing the fans" and "pleasing general audiences" are really not a mutually exclusive goal.
    But that doesn't mean you need to focus group test it to the point of being an abominable mess that overflows with cliche writing, vapid dialogue, and generic set pieces.  That's not even mentioning the horrible design.  What the recent news indicates is that they essentially did just that, which is what we've been saying since the inception of this threasd is a bad thing that leads to bad movies.  Like even ignoring the various problems with this type of focus group testing that have been documented for ages, I don't understand why there are people in this thread who see "they made something commercially viable at the expense of making an actually enjoyable movie" as something that we're supposed to laud them for?
    And then they make statements like "people liked the TMNT and Transformers designs" not realizing that, like, no.  People didn't.  Perhaps they think people did because they can somehow ignore the fact that both those films were heavily marketed to put it mildly.  Like, they put adverts for those films on everything.  TV and radio commercials, billboards, YouTube ads, toy lines, fast food toy lines, everywhere.  If you have a budget for that kind of mass marketing, a high turnout is almost inevitable.  And on a personal note, I've never met one single solitary person, even people that liked TMNT 2014, would have said "Yeah, I like it because the design is more realistic and appeals to me."  Like, for the most part, I see people who like it in spite of the designs.  And even that is a small number.
  22. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from MidoChaosHedgehog in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    And we've been arguing for the past two years that it's a BAD rationale.  I'm not sure what you think this changes?
  23. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from Syntax Speedway in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    I've mentioned in this thread before that I agree with the general philosophy of designing the movie with more than just the core fanbase in mind, if for no other reason than the fact that making an esoteric work that is overwrought with lore and internal references that only a niche population will understand has a tendency to lead to stilted writing and unsatisfying buildup and payoff.  I think if you make a good film, both fans and people who have never even heard of Sonic will enjoy it because it will have all the proper buildup and resolution that a good movie tends to have.  "Pleasing the fans" and "pleasing general audiences" are really not a mutually exclusive goal.
    But that doesn't mean you need to focus group test it to the point of being an abominable mess that overflows with cliche writing, vapid dialogue, and generic set pieces.  That's not even mentioning the horrible design.  What the recent news indicates is that they essentially did just that, which is what we've been saying since the inception of this threasd is a bad thing that leads to bad movies.  Like even ignoring the various problems with this type of focus group testing that have been documented for ages, I don't understand why there are people in this thread who see "they made something commercially viable at the expense of making an actually enjoyable movie" as something that we're supposed to laud them for?
    And then they make statements like "people liked the TMNT and Transformers designs" not realizing that, like, no.  People didn't.  Perhaps they think people did because they can somehow ignore the fact that both those films were heavily marketed to put it mildly.  Like, they put adverts for those films on everything.  TV and radio commercials, billboards, YouTube ads, toy lines, fast food toy lines, everywhere.  If you have a budget for that kind of mass marketing, a high turnout is almost inevitable.  And on a personal note, I've never met one single solitary person, even people that liked TMNT 2014, would have said "Yeah, I like it because the design is more realistic and appeals to me."  Like, for the most part, I see people who like it in spite of the designs.  And even that is a small number.
  24. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from Strong Guy in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    I've mentioned in this thread before that I agree with the general philosophy of designing the movie with more than just the core fanbase in mind, if for no other reason than the fact that making an esoteric work that is overwrought with lore and internal references that only a niche population will understand has a tendency to lead to stilted writing and unsatisfying buildup and payoff.  I think if you make a good film, both fans and people who have never even heard of Sonic will enjoy it because it will have all the proper buildup and resolution that a good movie tends to have.  "Pleasing the fans" and "pleasing general audiences" are really not a mutually exclusive goal.
    But that doesn't mean you need to focus group test it to the point of being an abominable mess that overflows with cliche writing, vapid dialogue, and generic set pieces.  That's not even mentioning the horrible design.  What the recent news indicates is that they essentially did just that, which is what we've been saying since the inception of this threasd is a bad thing that leads to bad movies.  Like even ignoring the various problems with this type of focus group testing that have been documented for ages, I don't understand why there are people in this thread who see "they made something commercially viable at the expense of making an actually enjoyable movie" as something that we're supposed to laud them for?
    And then they make statements like "people liked the TMNT and Transformers designs" not realizing that, like, no.  People didn't.  Perhaps they think people did because they can somehow ignore the fact that both those films were heavily marketed to put it mildly.  Like, they put adverts for those films on everything.  TV and radio commercials, billboards, YouTube ads, toy lines, fast food toy lines, everywhere.  If you have a budget for that kind of mass marketing, a high turnout is almost inevitable.  And on a personal note, I've never met one single solitary person, even people that liked TMNT 2014, would have said "Yeah, I like it because the design is more realistic and appeals to me."  Like, for the most part, I see people who like it in spite of the designs.  And even that is a small number.
  25. Thumbs Up
    Tara got a reaction from Syntax Speedway in Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)   
    And we've been arguing for the past two years that it's a BAD rationale.  I'm not sure what you think this changes?
×
×
  • 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.