Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Trailer 2 on Page 482)

[Badnik Mechanic]

Just now, PeterPancake said:

Nobody is going to take a cartoon seriously in a story about loneliness, despair and friendship. In a story with high-speed action and stakes. They are two completely different mediums that do not mesh. 

Isn't that the plot for the Secret of Nimh which is a cartoon? Same for An American Tale?

Plague Dogs.

Watership Down. 

[PaddyFancy]

24 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

 And lazily slapping a cartoon in the cinema in a grounded story would be taken seriously by no one. 

That is fake news if ever I saw it.

The Lion King has a pretty grounded story.

Want to see a cartoon where a child watches his father die (or murdered even)? You know...for kids!

[Shaddy Zaphod]

Some of my favorite cartoons ever made are about anxiety, loneliness, depression and suffering.

[PeterPancake]

1 minute ago, Mayor D said:

Can I just see if I understand this right?

Your entire argument is... "Sonic must look realistic because nobody will take him seriously if he looks like a cartoon in a live action film, my evidence of this is every other film which has had a live action cartoon hybrid."

Even then I'm not sure what you mean by cartoon.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And how could I be wrong? If I am wrong, how come it has never been attempted before in any movie? Why would/should have Sonic been the exception the unwritten rule that cartoons don't work in movies like this? 

[Tarnish]

6 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

Really? Because if that weren't the case, if Paramount didn't calculate based on data and market analytics what would and would not work for people, they would have used the game design.

Dude..again, you're talking as if famous studios never, ever made a movie that was a failure..which, I must remind you, is not the case..so quit it with this "well, if Paramount decided on it, it must be true and the right decision" stuff..

[Shaddy Zaphod]

Quote

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And how could I be wrong? If I am wrong, how come it has never been attempted before in any movie? Why would/should have Sonic been the exception the unwritten rule that cartoons don't work in movies like this? 

It's been attempted in fucking tons of movies, holy shit you don't know what you're talking about.

[The Deleter]

Why are we acting like ripping off ET is anywhere near a good idea for this movie, anyways. The character is an established icon, so audiences are already going to have a hard time buying a new premise for the character like this; Sonic as a "edgy" character doesn't have the same sympathetic angle that any good ET clone has; and at the very least, even the most casual of audiences can call out an ET ripoff storyline a mile away now. It'll be cliche, predictable, and maybe even insulting if the movie asks them to take it too seriously.

I said it before but I think this angle would result in an unmitigated disaster, not only from the blockbuster box office results, but from the general audience reception, as well. I can't think of a good reason to hope for this sort of premise from a Sonic movie, either; who asks for a Sonic movie that is all about believable characters and grounded realism, over spectacular feats of speed and athleticism against over-the-top setpieces and villains?

[Danj86]

13 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

But that's not what we're getting and I'm just trying to explain to you all WHY they didn't go with the game design for this movie and why their choice is justified. 

I think the problem we have with your point of view is that technology has advanced to such a degree that anything is possible in a movie and it could all look so natural. Like the Marvel movies. There was this bit in Dr. Strange and...well...it was pretty strange. A chase going on in weird collapsing worlds where you can walk on walls or upside down, it was pretty trippy. But because of technology, it didn't look out of place.

ET and Roger Rabbit are decades old and had to use what they could at the time. What would they look like if they were created in this time? It's impossible to know and a remake wouldn't answer that either. Because the originals exist, the mind already knows what to expect and what it likes from the characters, some will naturally shun the remakes.

What was my point? Oh yeah. Anything is possible in a movie. They could've picked any direction to take this movie, they have a pretty good budget and computers can do anything. Because of that, it doesn't feel like the choice they made was justified.

[PeterPancake]

5 minutes ago, Shaddy Zaphod said:

It's been attempted in fucking tons of movies, holy shit you don't know what you're talking about.

Citation needed. The only one that I can find is Rocky and Bullwinkle

[Penny]

9 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And how could I be wrong? If I am wrong, how come it has never been attempted before in any movie? Why would/should have Sonic been the exception the unwritten rule that cartoons don't work in movies like this? 

Besides the fact that it has been done before, and the fact that none of us really know exactly what type of movie this is going to be for sure, why does something not having been done before mean it shouldn't ever happen? Why not be a trailblazer? I mean, things can't exist without first having been invented, right? And why shouldn't Sonic be first? Every single live-action film franchise you've mentioned in your posts has been widely regarded as terrible, regardless of monetary success. Going by your logic, that should mean that every future time something like this happens, it'll be terrible. So, in that case, something different should be tried, hmm?

[Osmium]

10 minutes ago, Mayor D said:

Isn't that the plot for the Secret of Nimh which is a cartoon? Same for An American Tale?

Plague Dogs.

Watership Down. 

Don't forget Animals of Farthing Wood, still a quality series 20 years later and still as harrowing. 

[JustAfooL]

25 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

Really? Because if that weren't the case, if Paramount didn't calculate based on data and market analytics what would and would not work for people, they would have used the game design. Nobody is going to take a cartoon seriously in a story about loneliness, despair and friendship. In a story with high-speed action and stakes. They are two completely different mediums that do not mesh. 

 

That's why the Transformers did not look like they came off the set of the Bob the Builder movie when they debuted in their first film.

Correct us if we are wrong, but isn't the whole aspect of Transformers that they are disguised as ordinary vehicles in order to blend in, and thus should look like real machines anyway? Which is what the original designs reflected in the '80s, save for the creature-based ones?

Also, watch the Iron Giant and Persepolis in regard to your concerns about animation lacking emotional depth.

[PeterPancake]

3 minutes ago, -dan- said:

I think the problem we have with your point of view is that technology has advanced to such a degree that anything is possible in a movie and it could all look so natural. Like the Marvel movies. There was this bit in Dr. Strange and...well...it was pretty strange. A chase going on in weird collapsing worlds where you can walk on walls or upside down, it was pretty trippy. But because of technology, it didn't look out of place.

ET and Roger Rabbit are decades old and had to use what they could at the time. What would they look like if they were created in this time? It's impossible to know and a remake wouldn't answer that either. Because the originals exist, the mind already knows what to expect and what it likes from the characters, some will naturally shun the remakes.

What was my point? Oh yeah. Anything is possible in a movie. They could've picked any direction to take this movie, they have a pretty good budget and computers can do anything. Because of that, it doesn't feel like the choice they made was justified.

But the thing is, Doctor Strange did not have visuals that look like they belong in a Looney Tunes Christmas Special. They looked real and believable. When Strange did battle with the Acolytes of Kaecillius, they did not use Looney Tunes ropes and cartoon manholes to warp around the universe. They used wormholes and beams of energy.

 

Same goes for Infinity War. Thanos, Proxima, Corvus Glaive etc all CG and all of them were rendered realistically. Thanos didn't look like a cartoon, he looked like a real creature. ILM went out of their way to make sure Thanos looked and felt real. Like a real interacting with his environment

11 minutes ago, Osmium said:

Don't forget Animals of Farthing Wood, still a quality series 20 years later and still as harrowing. 

You guys are all talking about ANIMATED movies... I feel like we are all completely different pages right now. I'm not talking about animated movies. 

[Badnik Mechanic]

26 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And how could I be wrong? If I am wrong, how come it has never been attempted before in any movie? Why would/should have Sonic been the exception the unwritten rule that cartoons don't work in movies like this? 

Because your argument is only right if you completely simplify it to the point of explaining it to toddlers or someone who doesn't understand what makes a good movie.

You're whole stance, which you've now just admitted is 'Sonic must look realistic, because otherwise people don't like it, look at all other movies to prove I'm right.'

So the reason why therefore the Rocky and Bullwinkle movie failed is because the characters didn't fit in with the real world setting? 

It had nothing to do with the following...

• The script.
• The acting
• The jokes.
• The plot.
• Sound design.
• Costume design.
• Direction.
• Cinematography.
• Editing.

Now apply that to any other movie which meets your criteria.

It's completely nonsense argument. And even if you were adamant that it was that, I can name a good chunk of movies in which it has worked exactly like that, even to your parody extreme with the 'cartoon artstyle.'

It's like how some people think that all you need in a game to make it good is a good story and that Gameplay is a minor thing. 

[PeterPancake]

7 minutes ago, Mayor D said:

Because your argument is only right if you completely simplify it to the point of explaining it to toddlers or someone who doesn't understand what makes a good movie.

You're whole stance, which you've now just admitted is 'Sonic must look realistic, because otherwise people don't like it, look at all other movies to prove I'm right.'

So the reason why therefore the Rocky and Bullwinkle movie failed is because the characters didn't fit in with the real world setting? 

It had nothing to do with the following...

• The script.
• The acting
• The jokes.
• The plot.
• Sound design.
• Costume design.
• Direction.
• Cinematography.
• Editing.

Now apply that to any other movie which meets your criteria.

It's completely nonsense argument. And even if you were adamant that it was that, I can name a good chunk of movies in which it has worked exactly like that, even to your parody extreme with the 'cartoon artstyle.'

It's like how some people think that all you need in a game to make it good is a good story and that Gameplay is a minor thing. 

Yes, R&B was a terrible movie. But the horribly animated, obvious cartoon characters in a real world setting for a movie that was not trying to be a parody made the movie unappealing and ugly. Yes, the technical aspects of a movie are always the most important. But if your movie looks visually unappealing and ridiculous with a laughable premise then that is going to detract from the entire film. The visual language of s movie is very important too. How you present your movie to the GA matters. 

Paramount chose this direction for a reason. And it was a decision that was informed by their past successes.

 

Also, why do people keep saying the filmmakers don't care when the director of the movie literally animated the cutscenes for a Sonic game? When Casey is a big fan of the Classic games?

 

[Rabid-Coot]

Its going to be a long 11 months.

[Badnik Mechanic]

45 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

Why would/should have Sonic been the exception the unwritten rule that cartoons don't work in movies like this? 

 

10 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

Paramount chose this direction for a reason. And it was a decision that was informed by their past successes.

Anyone else spot how the argument just ever so subtly changed once I pointed out the real reasons why movies fail?

Yet if we didn't limit it to Paramount Animation which has only existed for 7 years, suddenly we're very limited and can't bring in the numerous examples of where cartoons have worked in movies?

[Tornado]

1 hour ago, PeterPancake said:

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And how could I be wrong? If I am wrong, how come it has never been attempted before in any movie? Why would/should have Sonic been the exception the unwritten rule that cartoons don't work in movies like this? 

55 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

Citation needed. The only one that I can find is Rocky and Bullwinkle

I'm sorry you like to make arguments without having any knowledge of whether they are true, then?

 

 

 

Anyway, I think this thread, which has been nothing but back and forth between everyone on this forum and two members for the past 3 dozen pages, has run its course for the time being. When there's actual news to talk about instead of just a shoutfest between the rest of SSMB and people who seemed to have accepted restitution from Paramount pictures, we'll open it back up.

[Tornado]

As an update, the movie has an official Twitter account to do the same hack self-deprecating "humor" that Sega's official Sonic account does. You can follow it here.

 

 

The thread is not being opened to discuss hack self-deprecating "humor", so if anything of substance is posted on it let us know so we can work from there.

[Tornado]

As an update, Jim Carrey said the word "Sonic" at the Golden Globes ceremony.

 

 

 

 

The thread is not being opened to discuss that Jim Carrey said the word "Sonic" at the Golden Globes ceremony, so if anything of substance is said by Jim Carrey let us know so we can work from there.

[Tornado]

After some thought, I'm reopening this so people can talk about whatever regarding the movie. Some points were raised in the statuses regarding this thread that I happen to agree with in principle even though I was the one who decided to lock it in the first place.

 

My request, and my only one really, is that when an employee from Paramount studios inevitably starts stumping for the film, you just ignore them instead of going on a two dozen page back and forth that you all know isn't going to go anywhere when you get into it. People are allowed to be wrong on the internet.

[Razule]

Saw this art by a God of War artist.

Spoiler

 

[Red Hot Jack]

Nice that we can chat about the movie. What do you think the other Actors like Natasha Rothwell and Neal McDonough are playing? McDonough could definitely be some Government agent who wants to catch Sonic, or maybe GUN Commander himself? The President?

Rothwell could be… just a thought… Tails, if it's a cameo in the movie. I still don't like the choice of having Sonic and "Robotnik" only but yeah, if they can focus on those 2 and save other iconic characters like Tails, Knuckles, Amy, Shadow and Metal Sonic for other movies, that would be cool. Keep in mind, there will definitely be some easter eggs, or cameos in this one, and expect one of those characters to be the cliffhanger tease at the end.

As for the design… the silhouette is still dreadful, it scares me, and I don't get why they made the decision to hide the design, but yeah, it's growing on me, plus Brazilians who saw the movie are excited for it, they are reassuring us as I said in the status update, so… let's give it a chance.

[CaptainRobo]

Nice to see that we can post again. So, I’m going to post some stuff that I wasn’t able to post due to because of the thread was closed for a few weeks.

I’m going to bet that this will be an scene in the movie.:

Josh, who is one of the movie writers posted an picture of him and the poster on Instagram.

Also, since, the movie is finally releasing this year, I decided to make an few more fan art of the movie. I know we are not likely to see characters like Blaze and Silver in the movie, but I want to imagine what would their interactions with the movie characters feel like.:

[Multikaris]

2 hours ago, Jack in the Snow said:

Nice that we can chat about the movie. What do you think the other Actors like Natasha Rothwell and Neal McDonough are playing? McDonough could definitely be some Government agent who wants to catch Sonic, or maybe GUN Commander himself? The President?

Rothwell could be… just a thought… Tails, if it's a cameo in the movie. I still don't like the choice of having Sonic and "Robotnik" only but yeah, if they can focus on those 2 and save other iconic characters like Tails, Knuckles, Amy, Shadow and Metal Sonic for other movies, that would be cool. Keep in mind, there will definitely be some easter eggs, or cameos in this one, and expect one of those characters to be the cliffhanger tease at the end.

As for the design… the silhouette is still dreadful, it scares me, and I don't get why they made the decision to hide the design, but yeah, it's growing on me, plus Brazilians who saw the movie are excited for it, they are reassuring us as I said in the status update, so… let's give it a chance.

Rothwell could be the new Rouge voice.