Jump to content
Mayor D

Sonic Live Action Movie "Now entering Silent Green Hill"

Recommended Posts

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

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.