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

[Rabid-Coot]

Robotnik has a full head of hair for the whole movie, post credit scene is him finally being bald.

[PeterPancake]

5 hours ago, DreamSaturn said:

Into the Spider-verse and The Lego Movie strongly disagree.

Not every animated movie can be "Spider-Verse". That movie actually pushed the limits for what an animated movie could be (even showing blood in fights). Chances are -- Sonic would not have been done the same way..

 

Lego Movie was a kids film aimed at 8 year olds. Prime example of why they didn't want it animated

[Badnik Mechanic]

5 hours ago, Red said:

The UK Toy Fair is today/tomorrow (depending on your timezone) so we may possibly get a look at Movie Sonic soon. No doubt they're going to market the shit out of the movie with as many toys as possible.

I actually have a pass to attend that, but can't afford to go... sad times.

Chances are if there are Sonic movie toys, you won't see them, certainly not if they're in controlled areas.

[SaturnWolf]

31 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

Not every animated movie can be "Spider-Verse". That movie actually pushed the limits for what an animated movie could be (even showing blood in fights). Chances are -- Sonic would not have been done the same way..

 

Lego Movie was a kids film aimed at 8 year olds. Prime example of why they didn't want it animated

And yet they still managed to be critically acclaimed and make a ton of money. Animation is a medium. You get out of it whatever you put in.

I'm also not sure I understand the logic behind "One film was aimed at younger audiences therefore they don't want to do animation." That's the most asinine thing I've heard so far. Plenty of comic books are aimed at little kids, but we still have comics like The Walking Dead. They're not mutually exclusive.

[PeterPancake]

19 minutes ago, DreamSaturn said:

And yet they still managed to be critically acclaimed and make a ton of money. Animation is a medium. You get out of it whatever you put in.

I'm also not sure I understand the logic behind "One film was aimed at younger audiences therefore they don't want to do animation." That's the most asinine thing I've heard so far. Plenty of comic books are aimed at little kids, but we still have comics like The Walking Dead. They're not mutually exclusive.

Doesn't matter. Why didn't Marvel make the Avengers animated? Why didn't DC make Justice League animated? When you make a movie animated, you are limiting it's audience. That's just the cold hard truth. There are millions of adults who will not take the movie seriously because animation in the west Is always almost exclusively aimed at children. 

 

Spider-Verse is the exception but they can not have a big budget blockbuster action movie aimed at teenagers/nostalgic adults like TMNT and Transformers with animation. Paramount didn't want it and Sony didn't want it because that's not the type of movie they wanted to make. Once the trailer drops, I hope there will be an understanding as to why the concept of this movie does not work for an animated aimed at pre-teens and 7 year olds. 

[SaturnWolf]

2 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

Doesn't matter. Why didn't Marvel make the Avengers animated? Why didn't DC make Justice League animated? When you make a movie animated, you are limiting it's audience. That's just the cold hard truth. There are millions of adults who will not take the movie seriously because animation in the west Is always almost exclusively aimed at children.

Because everyone took Justice League seriously. Everyone took the Ninja Turtles seriously. Everyone took Transformers seriously.

Except, if you look at their diminishing returns at the box office, you'd know that's completely untrue.

3 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

Spider-Verse is the exception but they can not have a big budget blockbuster action movie aimed at teenagers/nostalgic adults like TMNT and Transformers with animation. Paramount didn't want it and Sony didn't want it because that's not the type of movie they wanted to make. Once the trailer drops, I hope there will be an understanding as to why the concept of this movie does not work for an animated aimed at pre-teens and 7 year olds. 

You're assuming things with no base again. Your entire argument is "This is the right decision because it's the one they made" as if no movie studio has ever made a bad film or bad decision. Spoiler: they have. Many, many times. Animation isn't inherently aimed at children and pre-teens the same way live action isn't inherently aimed at adults.

[Badnik Mechanic]

18 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

When you make a movie animated, you are limiting it's audience. That's just the cold hard truth.

You know very well you just made that up for this topic.

[Tornado]

Are we going to have to lock this topic again?

 

 

I'm pretty sure one of the things I asked when it was reopened was that people just ignore when the Paramount executive inevitably came back and started saying stupid shit defending the movie. You all know that nothing will be accomplished from turning this thread into wall of text arguments spanning multiple pages with someone who won't listen, so what is the goal beyond puffing up your likes and alienating others from the thread from casually talking about it?

[The Tenth Doctor]

32 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

 When you make a movie animated, you are limiting it's audience. That's just the cold hard truth.

Remember Wreck-It Ralph? An animated movie made by Disney that had many old video game characters there? It was heavily marketed towards the video game crowd, which last time I checked is all ages. I may not want them to bank on nostalgia (a huge problem Sega has nowadays) but that is a powerful way to bring in older audiences. If an older audience see's how much the thing they use to know has changed, it can scare them away. How many people were terrified of the turtles new looks? Yet Ralph kept it the same, which made it successful for everyone.

 

Edit: Sorry Tornado, was writting this as you posted.

[Tarnish]

14 minutes ago, DreamSaturn said:

Your entire argument is "This is the right decision because it's the one they made" as if no movie studio has ever made a bad film or bad decision. Spoiler: they have. Many, many times. Animation isn't inherently aimed at children and pre-teens the same way live action isn't inherently aimed at adults.

That's all I'm getting from him as well.

22 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

When you make a movie animated, you are limiting it's audience.

Hate to break it to you, but you are limiting your audience REGARDLESS what type of movie you decide on. A comedy lover isn't gonna watch your horror movie, the same way as a horror lover isn't gonna watch your comedy. There is no such thing as a "movie type that appeals to absolutely everyone and their mother".

The Incredibles 2 just made $1.243 billion..doesn't sound that it had this super limited audience you claim it should have had because it's an animated movie. While the latest Star Wars movie, Solo just bombed at the box office..a live action movie that should have appealed "to absolutely everyone and their mother" failed..how exactly do you explain that?

Reading the admin comment, I'll leave it at that.

[PublicEnemy1]

10 minutes ago, Tornado said:

Are we going to have to lock this topic again?

 

 

I'm pretty sure one of the things I asked when it was reopened was that people just ignore when the Paramount executive inevitably came back and started saying stupid shit defending the movie. You all know that nothing will be accomplished from turning this thread into wall of text arguments spanning multiple pages with someone who won't listen, so what is the goal beyond puffing up your likes and alienating others from the thread from casually talking about it?

I think that it's best we lock it until we have an actual teaser trailer out.

[PeterPancake]

Well, the admin doesn't want me engaging in this argument so i'll just say this. You can't compare Sony Pictures animation or Paramount animation to Disney or Illumination. The brands for these two sell themselves. The reality is -- an animated Sonic movie would not have the same built-in audience as Wreck it Ralph or the Incredibles. And again, the Paramount execs want a franchise that can stand shoulder to shoulder with Transformers. An animated feature is not the solution to the problem of their lack of franchises. 

 

And what I mean by "take it seriously" is that the movie being live action and aimed at an older audience gives them an aura of importance that an animated does not provide. This is why the Avengers was not animated.  This is why "animated movies" are never nominated in more than one category at the Golden Globes or the Academy Awards. The simple fact of the matter is-- live action gives any given movie more prestige and it allows them to exercise their creative juices more. If the Avengers was animated-- the action scenes and the drama would have had to have been toned wayyy down. Let's not pretend that an animated Sonic with a G-rating would mean the same thing to the Studio as a live action movie with a PG-13 and Jim Carrey in a lead, live action role. With balls the walls high-speed action, drama and a killer badass score by Junkie XL

[Tarnish]

2 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

Well, the admin doesn't want me engaging in this argument so i'll just say this. You can't compare Sony Pictures animation or Paramount animation to Disney or Illumination. The brands for these two sell themselves. The reality is -- an animated Sonic movie would not have the same built-in audience as Wreck it Ralph or the Incredibles. And again, the Paramount execs want a franchise that can stand shoulder to shoulder with Transformers. An animated feature is not the solution to the problem of their lack of franchises. 

 

And what I mean by "take it seriously" is that the movie being live action and aimed at an older audience gives them an aura of importance that an animated does not provide. This is why the Avengers was not animated.  This is why "animated movies" are never nominated in more than one category at the Golden Globes or the Academy Awards. The simple fact of the matter is-- live action gives any given movie more prestige and it allows them to exercise their creative juices more. If the Avengers was animated-- the action scenes and the drama would have had to have been toned wayyy down. Let's not pretend that an animated Sonic with a G-rating would mean the same thing to the Studio as a live action movie with a PG-13 and Jim Carrey in a lead, live action role. With balls the walls high-speed action, drama and a killer badass score by Junkie XL

You're hopeless.

[Zaysho]

8 minutes ago, Tarnish said:

You're hopeless.

Enough. This is the kind of behavior Tornado just asked to stop.

[Tornado]

44 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

Well, the admin doesn't want me engaging in this argument so i'll just say this

 

If I wanted to silence you, specifically you, there is an awfully easier way to go about doing it than jumping through hoops and internal discussion with whether this thread should remain open. Irrelevant of how sincere I think you're actually being in this thread, what I actually don't want is for this thread to become page after page of dissertations from people who just can't let it go that someone is being wrong on the internet. Not only does it invalidate the entire purpose that the thread was reopened (so people could casually talk about the movie without fear of having their posts buried under walls upon walls of text), but I'm also beginning to believe that some of the responses to you are more "pretext to get you to say something so you get banned" than "attempt to debate a topic in good faith."

[Blueknight V2.0]

2 hours ago, PeterPancake said:

Lego Movie was a kids film aimed at 8 year olds. Prime example of why they didn't want it animated

Technically it was CG animated to look like a stop-motion film with actual LEGO's.

 

Anyways. Let's not continue an almost pointless discussion between the film will be good or bad and the live-action aspect vs. the entirely CG aspect. The film's live-action/CG hybrid, that's it and all there is to it. Sure I would've preferred an entirely animated Sonic Movie that looked like the games and stayed true to the designs like Ratchet & Clank did. But we're getting a live-action /CG hybrid, so I'm just hoping it turns out fine with the designs. Hopefully the trailer releases soon, so that everyone can give a solid opinion on the film.

[PeterPancake]

25 minutes ago, Tornado said:

 

If I wanted to silence you, specifically you, there is an awfully easier way to go about doing it than jumping through hoops and internal discussion with whether this thread should remain open. Irrelevant of how sincere I think you're actually being in this thread, what I actually don't want is for this thread to become page after page of dissertations from people who just can't let it go that someone is being wrong on the internet. Not only does it invalidate the entire purpose that the thread was reopened (so people could casually talk about the movie without fear of having their posts buried under walls upon walls of text), but I'm also beginning to believe that some of the responses to you are more "pretext to get you to say something so you get banned" than "attempt to debate a topic in good faith."

Oh. Well, that's certainly interesting. I'm just trying to make people understand. However -- I get it, the debates are grating. 

 

Anyway, I hope we get a look at the full movie design at Toy Fair today 

[Alexios31]

56 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

Oh. Well, that's certainly interesting. I'm just trying to make people understand. However -- I get it, the debates are grating. 

 

Anyway, I hope we get a look at the full movie design at Toy Fair today 

I wouldn’t count on that, my friend. 

[Red Hot Jack]

Is anybody able to go to the Toy Fair? I just want some news of ANY kind.

[Badnik Mechanic]

2 hours ago, Jack the Shadow said:

Is anybody able to go to the Toy Fair? I just want some news of ANY kind.

You can't just go to it. You need to register for it as a member of the trade.

Like I said before. I have a pass for it, but don't have the money to go.

 

Also I doubt there is anything Sonic there that we've not seen before. Even the Sonic Mascot costume wasn't there for the character parade, and that thing has been at every fair since 2010.

[CaptainRobo]

I'm ready for that trailer to come soon, no matter what, but I'm scared of how Sonic will look like. Just hope he won't looked creepy. 

6 hours ago, Jack the Shadow said:

Is anybody able to go to the Toy Fair? I just want some news of ANY kind.

Doubt it, there will be any movie merchandise there, but maybe, there will be some revealed at the NY Toy Fair next month?

[Alexios31]

Comic-con is when I think we will see the merchandise. 

[CaptainRobo]

9 hours ago, PeterPancake said:

Doesn't matter. Why didn't Marvel make the Avengers animated? Why didn't DC make Justice League animated? When you make a movie animated, you are limiting it's audience. That's just the cold hard truth. There are millions of adults who will not take the movie seriously because animation in the west Is always almost exclusively aimed at children. 

Sausage Party is one example of an animation movie made for adults.:

[The Tenth Doctor]

Anyone think we might get the trailer on Hedgehog Day? I know Sega rarely do anything for it anymore but hey, might happen.

[Blueknight V2.0]

10 minutes ago, The Tenth Doctor said:

Anyone think we might get the trailer on Hedgehog Day? I know Sega rarely do anything for it anymore but hey, might happen.

When's Hedgehog Day? Is that what Sega considers Groundhog Day? Because I've only heard of it as a Sonic Boom episode.

If that's the case then a trailer could release then. But why release a trailer then when the Super Bowl is the very next day?