Jump to content

PeterPancake

TSS Member
  • Content count

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PeterPancake

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Lol who said anything about a grimdark Sonic movie? Although I think Sonic would have a much easier time segwaying into that tone (just adapt SATAM), That is most definitely not what we'll be getting in this movie. I remember the rumors from back in 2014 that Sony wanted a Dark Knight-esque Sonic franchise and I couldn't help but scratch my head. I expect this movie to have a lighter tone than Dark Knight with edgy humor while still having real stakes. The original writer said he wrote Sonic's personality to be like Pete Mitchell's from Top Gun so it definitely sounds like Sonic himself will be pre-Roger Craig Smith (thank god) lovable smart ass. I could see Dr. Eggman being played more straightforward and being legitimately threatening. (Bryan Cranston or John Goodman are my choices) I think it would be really cool if they brought back the "Dr. Ivo Robotnik" name from the comics and have Sonic mockingly call him Dr. Eggman The movie should have the tone of an MCU film with the action of Transformers.
  2. How do you know that? How can you say Sonic can't work as well as other succesful properties when the precedent has never been set? There is nothing separating Sonic from franchises like the MCU, G'i Joe, TMNT or the Transformers. Yes it will, history has proved it time and time again with other adaptions. (Marvel Universe, Transformers, DC Universe) The movie can break new ground and bring in NEW fans who are older. The Sonic franchise gone through a variety of different tones and atmosphere. Only the last few games have pandered to children with terrible jokes, slapstick humor and stories that carry no weight at all- while the Adventure series carried itself with much more weight, Sonic O6 (although not the best example but still) Sonic Unleashed too as well as the Archie comics, SATAM and Sonic X. There is nothing in the textbook "Sonic guide" that says the franchise has to pander to kids instead of being Kid-friendly but otherwise telling stories that appeal to a wide variety of audience. It COULD flop, yes but one thing Sonic has going for it over other video game movies Is the sheer icon status of the IP & wide appeal to all ages. Assassins Creed, Hitman etc didn't have that and are nowhere near as iconic as Sonic. And the landscape on VGMs are changing. Tomb Raider was not a smash hit but it wasn't a failure, it did better critically and financially better than most video game movies. And Rampage was a definitive success. They are, though. Why do you think they're almost always rated PG? They are aimed at primarily the 7-11 year old demographic. That doesn't mean they can't tell compelling stories but the "aimed at kids" thing is not up for debate. It's 100% true. Most PG-13 blockbuster smash hits will always be bigger than animated movies aimed squarely at kids. The scope and atmosphere surrounding the project will ALWAYS be bigger. Unless you're Disney or Despicable Me. Mario can ONLY work as an animated movie, it's just the truth based on the nature of the property. Unlike Mario, Sonic has tons of media that lend itself well to live action movie with a REAL story and stakes. Sonic games has always been much more action focused, story focused and even much more serious themes compared to Mario games. You could never make Mario the same way unless you did some dark, gritty reinvention and turned Mario into something it's not.
  3. Sega wants a blockbuster franchise in vein of the MCU. An animated movie for 9 year olds does not hold the same weight as live action action movie. It will be nowhere near as big. This was the right choice. Heck, if they wanted to, they could make a Sonic cinematic universe, there is certainly enough material to mine from.
  4. Robo is right, it's a working title. All movies have one during production. That being said, I do wonder if Casino Night will be in the movie, it will certainly be nostalgic
  5. My mistake https://twitter.com/Pat_Kc/status/992580822380101632?s=20
  6. I'm really rooting for this movie. If this movie is a smash hit, Sonic can become much bigger than they could've ever imagined. Here's tweet from the writer responding to a fan asking whether the animation will look like those Boom commercials aka Sonic looking like a cartoon. https://twitter.com/Pat_Kc/status/992542347257757696?s=09
  7. It sure as hell will be. Sega surely can't muscle every single creative decision they make especially something as big as Sonic's design. Sonic's design needs to be marketable to the masses, Paramount stands to lose money too, not just Sega. Their revenue has been on a steady decline and the Transformers films are underperforming at the box-office. It doesn't matter how good the writing is, a shitty presentation (having Sonic look like a cartoon) would ruin the movie for most people. Like you said, the concept of a blue anthropomorphic Hedgehog is a hard enough sell to the GA, but you aggravate that problem up to 11 by having Sonic look like a CG model ripped from the games. The problem here is that you think Sega will apply the same logic and thought proccess they have when managing the games and they'd be foolish to do so - because the film industry is a COMPLETELY different beast from the video game industry. If Sega hopes to expand their reach - They must adapt and conform to what is necessary in the Hollywood landscape, they can not strong arm their way through the production of this film. IT MUST be a collaborative proccess between Sega and people who KNOW what sells to the audience; people who have been making movies for years and have much more experience than Sega does in the moviemaking business. Otherwise, there would have been ZERO reason to have Paramount or any Hollywood producers involved, Sega could've easily MARZA make an animated movie like the Werehog film they made years ago and sell the film to a distributor for release. The original writer from the previous version of the film at Sony where MARZA was doing the animation- confirmed that Sonic would get a redesign "although nothing drastic" which can be interpreted many different ways. But it confirms one thing, Sega is being more flexible, creatively. Because it's a necessary evil. This is not like Sonic Boom or Classic. This is a multimillion dollar Blockbuster movie being footed, distributed and marketed by Paramount Pictures. Again, you're applying the same throught process people behind the games to this movie and that's a mistake. Movie Sonic will be different from classic, modern or Boom. It will be a completely different branch. Furthermore, Paramount will have a say in whether the brand gets splintered off (which It will) because this is their Sonic too. Their trademark will be on the copyright print right next to Sega's logo.
  8. I won't dispute this argument. But I was just highlighting the fact that if they were going to do that it wouldn't be 'Sonic in name only". But yeah, I do agree that Sonic could be transformed into something completely unrecognizable using the core basics. But "updating" Sonic's design for a PG-13 live action film is a necessity and nowhere near as extreme. Otherwise, this movie could have just as easily been an animated movie aimed at nine y/o kids. And I loved SATAM too and even Sonic Underground despite the reception. And Wasn't a huge fan of The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog but it was a fun little show. Sonic X & SATAM were my favorites and I hope if the movie takes any inspiration from the cartoons - They look at those two. Paramount has been making movies for almost 80 years. They will have a much better grasp of what sells to the audience and Sega must realize this. Something as important as Sonic's design aka what will be the FACE of their product and possibly franchise will need to and most probably will be a collaborative proccess between everyone involved. It won't just be "We want the game model ripped out of Sonic Colors and that's FINAL" it does not work like that. That's not how moviemaking works. Jeff Fowler will have a say, Neal Moretz will have a say, Tim Miller will have a say, concept artists for the movie who they send patents out to will have some pull as well if Paramount likes what they're selling. Making a movie is a collaborative proccess. It isn't just going to entail Sega execs stomping their feet in the storyboard rooms and gatekeeping every creative decision the writers and producers make. And yes, by the very nature of the movie, regardless - It will be a new Sonic on the market. Merchandise and tv ads will be a separate brand from the games. I'll reply to the rest in 40 minutes. I'm about to get off of work
  9. I'm not sure If that's going to work. I'm on Mobile because I'm using an android. And yet SATAM is still considered one of the best Sonic tv shows of all time. If anything, this movie should take a few pages out of that awesome show. It WAS still Sonic but with REAL storytelling. If anything - it proves that the Brand doesn't fail when it strives to be more than subpar entertainment for 9 year old kids. Just like that show and the classic games - the main theme of this movie should be Nature. Vs Technology Sega Is dealing with unprecedented territory here. This nothing like the Big Red Button fiasco. Paramount has the official rights to the movie franchise - that means that NO other studio can make movies for the character besides them. Even Sega can not make Sonic films on their own because they sold the license to Paramount. (See Marvel Studios and the curious case of Fox making their own Marvel films) That means that Sega will not be the only ones who have a say on certain elements in the film, Paramount are the ones footing the bill for the movie. If Sega wants Sonic to look like he belongs in a cartoon show in a PG-13 film then certain Paramount execs, Fowler, Tim Miller and Studio producers can veto that decision. Sega probably gets final say but it's going to be a collaborative process with input from both sides. Otherwise it's going to become a tug of war like what happened between Lionsgate/Dean Israelite and Saban on the Power Rangers movie. The former wanted a darker movie with much more alien Ranger designs and the latter (the IP owner) wanted a much lighter film with more heroic designs. This power struggle shows in early concept art for the movie. But ultimately they came to a middle ground.. And since we know that Sony were the last ones to hold the license, you can almost guarantee they had a say in Sonic's design. Amy Pascal, Tom Rothman and Avi Arad are known throughout the industry to be meddlers who meddle with movie productions. Yes, I'd agree with you if this was a PG comedy film about Sonic & friends being "sucked out of the games" and dragged into the real world. There is a precedent for those types of movies (Space Jam, Looney Tunes, Roger Rabbit, Smurfs) But here's the thing, we got confirmation YEARS AGO that this movie would be nothing like those films. Doing a more straight forward PG-13 action film completely forfeits a whole new set of rules, it drastically changes the audience's perception of what constitutes for a suspension of disbelief. And rightfully so, because with that rating comes a certain expectation that a movie is going to deal with more adult themes, action and violence you would not see in a G-Rated kids flick. The only way it would not be laughed at by most people is if this movie is an adult comedy satire about Sonic being from video games; like it goes out of its way to point out the absurdity of a cartoon existing in real life. Like a PG-13 version of Roger Rabbit. Otherwise - trying to tell a story with any semblance of seriousness with cartoon characters will become the next big meme of 2019. I can just picture it now - the trailer trying to make Sonic who looks like he belongs in the Mickey mouse Christmas special, look badass or do something really onlu to be met with laughter from the audience. It's very easy to imagine how wrong the movie can go if the movie looks like that Progressive commercial from 7 years ago and it tries to sell itself as a badass, edgy action film. Those Turtle designs did sell the GA on the movie because the first movie was a box-office smash. Fans were the ones up in arms about the changes. Contrary, doing a TMNT film where the Turtles look like cartoons- exactly as they did in the Fred Wolf show would have turned off anybody who wasn't a hardcore fan. The only argument that can be countered for Marza is whether Sonic will look like a cartoon model or a more realistic interpretation of that design. And it's based on the assumption that Marza made Sonic look like he doesn't fit in a real world environment in their proof if concept tests. Blur is the one who should be handling the bulk of animation. Sega may want Marza but Fowler may want Blur who ironically has experience with Sonic in the past.
  10. That scene does look "realistic". The cars, lighting and space are all rendered to look real. Sonic looking like a video game model ripped out of the game is something completely different from that. That's not being"non-realistic" the same way of that scene
  11. (This would be so much easier f I knew how to break up posts into segments) Addressing your first point, I think you're confusing conformity aka Creative liberty - with - production design, aesthetic and the overall presentation of the movie. Fast & Furious is what it is and does what does WELL. But how does the movie present itself to the general audience? It does not look like a joke or some silly satire about cars. Here's what i mean; The action is implausible In real life, most of the crazy stuff that happens in those movies is impossible in the real world but the stunt coordinators and CG artists try to the best of their ability TO make it feel and look real. This is filmmaking 101, suspension of disbelief. That suspension would be shattered in a PG-13 Action film (like F&F) where the main protagonist doesn't even look like he belongs in the same environment he inhibits. ESPECIALLY when he's going to be sharing screen time with real life human being. And going back to F&Fs - quite frankly there is no need to conform to the general audience's expectations because the average movie goer bought what they were selling over a decade ago which was wayyy less extravagant and crazy than it is now. And it is not the equelivant of having Sonic look like a cartoon. Regarding Sonic being made into something it isn't - There's this thing called "adaptation" and what that means is taking an existing property and telling your own story with it, taking elements from whatever source material and filtering those elements through your vision. That's what all comic book movies, Nostaligia properties (TMNT, TF) ETC are. Thats not "trying to be something different" or something it's not. What is Sonic? What is the core of the franchise? An anthropomorphic blue Hedgehog who runs really fast and fights robots/badniks created by a guy called Dr. Eggman who wants to reinvent the world in his image. That's Sonic, in reality any adaptation could use those core essentials and change many of the elements surrounding and it would STILL be Sonic. But I doubt this movie will be a radical reinvention like that. You're speaking as if the Studio that makes the movie shouldn't care whatsoever how it will be perceived by the MAJORITY of the people who are going to be buying tickets, to the people who dictate whether the movie succeeds or fails. There's a reason why the G1 designs were not used in the Bayformer films, why Captain America, Iron Man, Thor and pretty much every hero in the MCU got a design update from the comics that didn't look ridiculous, why the Power Rangers movie ditched the Sentai suits, why pretty much every adaptation that strives to be a blockbuster film has to look PRESENTABLE to the people who will make up 97%. Of the worldwide box-office gross. Even Deadpool's suit was given additional detail & elements to make him look more presentable to the main audience and not like a cartoon character he was in the comics. Sonic looking like he came out of the changing room from the set of Who Framed Roger rabbit Is just not happening. There's too much at stake. A live action PG-13 Sonic the Hedgehog movie is more of a risk than Deadpool and Guardians of the Galaxy combined. The movie at least has to look like something most people won't laugh out of theaters. And Marza being involved before Blur doesn't mean anything. The movie prior to Tim Miller hadn't even started proper development yet. The most they could'v came up with is a proof of concept animation test. There was no director, producer or anyone on the movie. Even the script was retooled from what it was. The article that confirmed it would start filming in July mentioned Blur would be doing the animation for the movie which makes wayyy more sense for a multitude of reasons than Marza. Mainly being their relationsip with Jeff Fowler and Tim Miller and experience working on Blockbuster films. (They even did work on Deadpool)