Ken Penders Scrapped Sonic Movie

[Marcello]

Now the million dollar question is whether he had Sega's approval to pitch this to begin with.

Silly Carbo, these characters are the sole property of Ken Penders.

[Milo]

Look at this.

Some Conceptual Pictures of Penders never made Archieverse Sonic Motion Picture.

Ken Penders pitched it Dreamworks Animation in 2002 & they seemed interessted, but somehow it didn't work out.

Dreamworks deserves a huge cookie for making sure this never even got the chance to be greenlit.

Seriously, just sit and imagine how this film (a Ken Penders-produced Sonic movie) would had affected the franchise as a whole, let alone the comics; if this ever got to see the light of day. Especially with those designs. And that's not even getting into who he/the studio would get to be associated with the film and the possible executive meddling...

[Big Boss (legendsneverdie)]

I agree that those pics are absolutely horrendous. Knuckles looks ridiculous in the fourth pic.

I really don't want an Archie based movie.

[Winston]

Dreamworks deserves a huge cookie for making sure this never even got the chance to be greenlit.

Seriously, just sit and imagine how this film (a Ken Penders-produced Sonic movie) would had affected the franchise as a whole, let alone the comics; if this ever got to see the light of day. Especially with those designs. And that's not even getting into who he/the studio would get to be associated with the film and the possible executive meddling...

Not even Sonic '06 could top a disaster as huge as that.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Shaggy Rogers

[Dreamhog]

Oh man, look at Knuckles' mouth in that last pic... XD

Yeah, I don't exactly know the Archie universe too well, but this doesn't really look like much of a loss to me. If a real Sonic movie ever gets made, I'd prefer it to be based on the games (either animated or CG, both could potentially work really well).

Have you seen their animated shorts that were in sonic unleashed or night of the werehog? It proves they can totally do it if they want to. I believe they have all of them on youtube.

[Abominal SnowTaz]

Dreamworks deserves a huge cookie for making sure this never even got the chance to be greenlit.

Seriously, just sit and imagine how this film (a Ken Penders-produced Sonic movie) would had affected the franchise as a whole, let alone the comics; if this ever got to see the light of day. Especially with those designs. And that's not even getting into who he/the studio would get to be associated with the film and the possible executive meddling...

I concur. And even if Dreamworks did approve (thank God they didn't), Penders would still have SEGA hot on his ass, and i'm pretty sure if SEGA of Japan can say no to 'you-know-who', the same situation would apply here.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Abominal Taz

[Tails spin]

Dreamworks deserves a huge cookie for making sure this never even got the chance to be greenlit.

Seriously, just sit and imagine how this film (a Ken Penders-produced Sonic movie) would had affected the franchise as a whole, let alone the comics; if this ever got to see the light of day. Especially with those designs. And that's not even getting into who he/the studio would get to be associated with the film and the possible executive meddling...

It happened to Mario and he is still going strong

[Milo]

It happened to Mario and he is still going strong

That's because Mario is consistently excellent in the gaming world. Also, that film is 100% disowned by Nintendo itself. This also applies to Mario Hotel as well.

Compared to Sonic who's had his ups and downs. Also, imagine if this did get finished and it was released within 1-4 years later from said suggested date (2002). By then, Sonic Heroes (adknowledged as when Sonic first stumbled) and Shadow the Hedgehog (when the bad stuff started to really kick off), and Sonic 06 (the series's low point) would had either been released or would had been announced already. Whatever bad reputation the Sonic series was then getting at that time would had been had been near-beyond repair, rather than hit an all-time low at that point.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Madame Amano

[Tails spin]

That's because Mario is consistently excellent in the gaming world. Also, that film is 100% disowned by Nintendo itself. This also applies to Mario Hotel as well.

Compared to Sonic who's had his ups and downs. Also, imagine if this did get finished and it was released within 1-4 years later from said suggested date (2002). By then, Sonic Heroes (adknowledged as when Sonic first stumbled) and Shadow the Hedgehog (when the bad stuff started to really kick off), and Sonic 06 (the series's low point) would had either been released or would had been announced already. Whatever bad reputation the Sonic series was then getting at that time would had been had been near-beyond repair, rather than hit an all-time low at that point.

I see your point. (though I will disagree on the Sonic Heroes bit, for the only reason that even if it did have its problems its one of my favorite games)

[AlphaRuby]

No, MtP would do a movie version of Sonic 1 with only Sonic and the Dr. only

And the F word would be all over the movie. As well as incomprihensible shouting.

[TimberWolf]

I fail to see what is so confusing about "a movie set in the Archie continuity using Archie characters will alienate the larger chunk of the fanbase"...

Seriously, it's common fucking sense. The Archie fans are a minority compared to everyone else, and both casual fans and those who aren't fans but have heard about Sonic will more likely know about the video games than the comics. Oh, wait, I forgot, the fans don't fucking matter, just shit out some low-budget trash heap because the "kiddies" will watch it anyway. Except they won't, because it fucking sucks and kids are more likely to know about the games than a fucking North American comic book.

But, hey, don't listen to me. After all, the Mario movie was such a blockbuster hit wasn't it?

[Aquaslash]

But, hey, don't listen to me

Considering you can't string together a coherent point without the need to throw F bombs all over the place, as well as throw around opinion like it's fact, I don't think I will be! XD

Edited March 23, 2012 by Aquaslash

[Diogenes]

I fail to see what is so confusing about "a movie set in the Archie continuity using Archie characters will alienate the larger chunk of the fanbase"...

Existing fans, sure. Potential fans? I doubt it. Anyone who's not already part of the fanbase probably doesn't give two shits about either Rouge or Antoine, so it really doesn't matter to them which one shows up in the movie.

It's still a terrible idea, though, because it would only drive what's already very niche (Sonic in general) even deeper.

[Aquaslash]

Existing fans, sure. Potential fans? I doubt it. Anyone who's not already part of the fanbase probably doesn't give two shits about either Rouge or Antoine, so it really doesn't matter to them which one shows up in the movie.

It's still a terrible idea, though, because it would only drive what's already very niche (Sonic in general) even deeper.

Exactly. The presence of certain characters themselves will not kill the movie just by virtue of them existing.

Setting the movie in any existing continuity is a bad idea because then you have to be versed in that continuity to know what's going on. That kind of thing should only be the case for sequels, where the movie then has it's own continuity to build off of.

I'm not a fan of this cast btw. For a franchise where the main focus is on a single character, it's way too many characters being used, especially for a first movie.

I'm not exactly sure how I would go about making a Sonic movie TBH, but I do know that there would be very few characters in it aside from Sonic and Eggman.

[Scar]

The problem I have with making an Archie film is the fact that the film will be called "Sonic the Hedgehog: The Movie", as an appeal to popularity. So Sonic fans in general will go see it, not just fans of Archie specifically. The problem with that is that the Archie canon has a multitude of characters. A massive multitude. Only the central cast are recognisable, that being Sonic, Amy, Knuckles and Tails. Perhaps with Shadow being included too. The rest of the newer characters introduced to Archie will be completely unknown. So in order for the film to be successful, its going to need to develop these extra characters....and there are a large number to do that for.

It would be far simpler to have the story focussed on developing the plot itself and the central cast, leaving the others out entirely or relegating them to sideliners (which of course will piss off their fans endlessly).

The film makers would need to make me like those extra characters such as Lara-su, Julie-Su. They're going to make me care about them. Right now I, and many others couldn't give a shit about who they are and why they're there or what happens to them. A lot of these same people probably don't care or don't like them because of the way they've been characterised within the Arche canon. So they may well end up needing to retool the characters so they do appeal to a wider collection of people and thus they would once again end up pissing off fans who'll slag the film writers off like Michael Bay, for "ruining their childhood", even if the new characterisation is objectively believed to be better than before. They'll bitch because its different.

Same goes for the core cast too. Sonic, Tails, Knuckles and Amy are all characterised differently to their game counterparts, for better or for worse (I personally lean towards the latter). So once again, the core cast may need their characters modified from their Archie iterations, maybe even from their game iterations for the sake of the movie. This may well piss off even MORE people.

Its a far more complex issue than one might initially think.

There are a lot of variables in the making of a movie. Firstly I don't think SEGA would even allow a Sonic film to be made period, let alone one based off of, what is essentially prettied up fanfiction. If there is a film, chances are SEGA and Sonic Team will be overseeing it, and anything and everything that is exclusive to Archie will be non-existant.

Anyway, I think Sonic's game canon has enough characters that are underdeveloped, even some of the main cast (ahem Knuckles) haven't been written entirely amazingly. Focusing on central cast is good enough, because there are enough of them to make a compelling film. You only 15-20 or so significant characters, with a handful of secondary and tertiary protagonists/antagonists. Then of course the titular primary protagonist that is Sonic.

Those are all that is needed to make a great Sonic movie. Introducing all those extra Archie characters....they'll just be too many/

[Diogenes]

Exactly. The presence of certain characters themselves will not kill the movie just by virtue of them existing.

Well it probably wouldn't kill it, but it wouldn't help to spend screen time on a bunch of characters that a significant portion of fans have reason to dislike or to not care about. Like, even if it was divorced from any particular continuity, seeing any sort of "Princess Sally" in a major role would pretty much instantly sour the movie for a bunch of long-time game fans.

[TimberWolf]

The problem with that is that the Archie canon has a multitude of characters.

I've been saying that over and over already, certain people just don't get it.

[Aquaslash]

@ Scar

You have the same problems with making a film based in the game continuity as you do with making one in the comic continuity. There are too many characters in both.

The general populace knows Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Robotnik, and maybe Shadow. Characters like Amy, the Chaotix, Rouge, Cream? Only hardcore fans know about them, and the rest of the gaming community slags them all off as "Sonic's shitty friends". You'd have to spend the same amount of time making Amy interesting to the mainstream populace that you would for Sally.

"only 15-20 or so significant characters," is way too many for a franchise that centers around one character. Plus that's not even true. I would actually make the argument that there are only FOUR significant characters in the game continuity, and that they're all being featured in the upcoming Sonic game.

In fact, I'd wager that those four characters should be the only ones involved in any kind of feature film. Save the rest for cameos, backstory, and sequels.

@ Dio

I think people like that are the same sort that cried "RUINED FOREVER" when they found out that the live action Optimus Prime was a long nosed cab that had flames on it. Honestly not the sort I'd be taking into consideration. Of course, I wouldn't be giving Sally a starring role anyway. At least not in the first film.

[Diogenes]

I think people like that are the same sort that cried "RUINED FOREVER" when they found out that the live action Optimus Prime was a long nosed cab that had flames on it. Honestly not the sort I'd be taking into consideration.

There's a difference between tweaking a character's design, and what characters you base the story around. If they put the freedom fighters into the movie, I would be pretty sure they weren't telling the kind of Sonic story I am interested in.

[Aquaslash]

I suppose that would all depend on the creative talent then. I don't subscribe to the idea that a story involving the freedom fighters has to be anything like what's in the comic or the old TV shows. Likewise, a story involving Emerl doesn't have to be anything like what was in Sonic Battle.

I think if you adapt a character, all you need is the appearance and basic personality traits. Backstory is a blank slate as far as I'm concerned. I could (and have) quite easily throw Sonia, of all characters, into the game continuity without violating the character or the game continuity itself.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Aquaslash

[Diogenes]

Aaaah, but now you piss off everyone, because the people who don't like the character don't want them here, and the people who do, want them to be the character they like and not some new character in a mask.

[Aquaslash]

Aaaah, but now you piss off everyone, because the people who don't like the character don't want them here, and the people who do, want them to be the character they like and not some new character in a mask.

That is a risk you run with every single character in the franchise, including Sonic himself. Case in point, the many versions of Robotnik across the franchise. If I had a penny for every rant I've seen complaining about one version or the other, I tell you...

All these pissed off people will get over it if the story's well crafted enough, and I'd like to think that they wouldn't be silly enough to expect that X character is going to be exactly the same as they were in a completely unrelated continuity.

Bumblebee was never a mute who spoke only through radio stations, but damn if I didn't see people on the verge of tears when Soundwave was about to blast his head away in the third TF film.

EDIT:

I should mention. I keep bringing up these Transformers comparisons, because Transformers is in the exact same boat as Sonic. It was a franchise with other twenty years of backstory and completely different and wildly varying continuities. There were several TV shows, games, and comic books. The live action films borrowed from all of them, but put it's own spin on what it borrowed. It added its own things as well and is its own continuity. Fans complained about every single thing imaginable, but those movies became box office smashes regardless.

Obviously this is the kind of success that Sonic wants, and the road there would probably be quite similar.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Aquaslash

[Mauro Fonseca]

Timberwolf, it sounds to me more you're letting rampant fanaticism cloud your ears, otherwise you'd have gotten the point by now.

The character's origin has no bearing on whether the film would be good or not. How to Train Your Dragon is based on a series of books, though outside of the States they're virtually unknown. Kung-Fu Panda is based on nothing, and so is most of Pixar's work.

Here's what would happen with a GOOD Sonic film with Archie elements.

Many fans would cry like babies and refuse to see, BUT-

1- It would have Sonic as the main character and driving point.

At this point, you can count thousands of kids and Sonic fans.

2- The fact Archie has a thousand and eight-hundred characters DOESN'T MEAN THEY ALL HAVE TO APPEAR. I mean seriously? Scar, Timberwolf, have you been hit with the silly disease? Were all the 23456 mutants from the MArvel Continuity on the X-Men films?

3- Therefore, all they'd need to do would be keep the focus on what's most recognizable- Sonic, Eggman, and the games' world, as it's what's most recognizable. To the eyes of the general audience- you know, the ones who'll buy the tickets, the ones who'll actually make or break the film in critical and financial terms- any character past Sonic and Eggman is an extra, be it from the games or comics; so at this point, as long as no character is made too obnoxious and spotlight-stealing, they're all fine to use.

Edited March 23, 2012 by The KKM

[SenEDDtor Missile]

though outside of the States they're virtually unknown. Kung-Fu Panda is based on nothing, and so is most of Dreamwork Animations' work.

[Mauro Fonseca]

No, I meant that. I was only giving Dreamworks examples, so I added the whole Pixar library to it.