Jump to content
Badnik Mechanic

Sonic Live Action Movie Thread (Read OP for topic rules) "Gangsters Paradise is on Page 380)

Recommended Posts

Disagreements about what does and doesn't work about the design...that like, leads to actual discussion.

There's barely been anything like that aside from a few people joking or tweaking the design a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PeterPancake said:

Also, that model clearly looks instantly recognizable. There is nothing inherently bad about it  

It's recognizable to you because you know who Sonic is and that that is supposed to be Sonic. But if you took someone who knows absolutely nothing about Sonic and took this image 

D0_WfvjXQAAs1X0.jpg

and had to use it to create awareness of this

Image result for sonic the hedgehog

and this 

Image result for sonic the hedgehog

You might have a much harder time than you think convincing people it's the same thing.

Frankly, I know that's Sonic and it just doesn't look like him at all from that angle to me which is problematic since the other leaked images including the 06 pose at least looks like Sonic regardless of my opinion on the design direction. Point is though, if you have fans not finding the above to be looking like Sonic then the only way to use that to create brand awareness is through constant side by sides and making sure that Sonic's name is constantly present. Marketing 101 I'm sure, but what happens when you have someone who isn't good with names like my dad trying to explain this to someone who isn't familiar with the brand at all? It's kind of a problem that can only really be solved through an extremely persistent advertising campaign and if the funding for that is part of the 90m budget for the movie than either it is going to suffer or the marketing just to corelate the top image in this post with the others. That, or they're hoping that Sonic's name alone would be enough to get fans to talk about it creating buzz and correlation that way in which case they aren't wrong, but the you have to consider our fanbases reputation and Sonic's on a whole and wonder if that is the best idea either.

I honestly find myself feeling sorry for the fans who wanted Sonic on the big screen and getting this instead and being told it's not even for them at that, and I also feel sorry for the people this is targeted at to get them into the franchise since if they like this they are going to feel like SatAM fans, and Classic fans, and Adventure fans, and Modern fans, and Boom fans, And pre-Reboot Archie fans, and post-Reboot Archie fans, and Fleetway fans, and even IDW fans to an extent in that they don't feel like their branch is getting enough attention and can't wrap their heads around why everyone else hates their branch and only likes their own. To me no consumer wins in this case, and considering how unstable the brand is and SEGA as a video game company (they're fine outside of that for the most part right now to my knowledge) this further fracturing and SEGA's inability to attend to every branch will hurt consumer confidence which in turn will hurt investor confidence which in turn will only hurt the franchise as more customers imply abandon ship from not being attended to. Frankly, I find myself agreeing with Naka that this design is honestly not really good for the IP and that has nothing to do with what I think about the artistic direction of the design.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he right, because the movie is gaining more attention despite the controversy?

Also, is the guy delusional that there is not much positive reaction about the Pokemon in Detective Pikachu? I don’t remember that there aren’t that many positive reaction about the Pokemon from a lot of people. I see a lot of positive reactions about them.

BTW, I hear a lot of bad things about this guy. He seem to like to mock the fandom a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I-, how do I address your point without "dismissing your opinion" ummm, let's just say that I could instantly tell who that character is even if I wasn't a hardcore Sonic fan. We should test that theory. Show that image to someone who isn't a hardcore fan and ask them who it is..if they say "Sonic" then the character design team did their job well. 

2 minutes ago, CaptainRobo said:

Is he right, because the movie is gaining more attention despite the controversy?

Also, is the guy delusional that there is not much positive reaction about the Pokemon in Detective Pikachu? I don’t remember that there aren’t that many positive reaction about the Pokemon from a lot of people.

 

He's right in saying that the hate/complaining is bringing attention to this movie. There's no such thing as bad publicity when it comes to a studio 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

I-, how do I address your point without "dismissing your opinion" ummm, let's just say that I could instantly tell who that character is even if I wasn't a hardcore Sonic fan. We should test that theory. Show that image to someone who isn't a hardcore fan and ask them who it is..if they say "Sonic" then the character design team did their job well. 

I mean, if we're really doing this... @Mayor D did this with results that don't exactly support your viewpoint, for what it's worth. 

 

 
I also just showed it to my co-worker, and it took him several seconds before guessing "Sonic" without much confidence in his voice. "Maybe it's just a still-frame or something... maybe it'll look more like Sonic in the full trailer?"
 
So..... eh? It's definitely Sonic, but it's not anywhere near as strong as the original design, or even Sonic Boom's.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

Uhhh because at what point does a post overlap into dismissive territory? Are we like, not allowed to have disagreements in this thread? That seems to be the reason why this thread keeps being closed but I'm actually confused by what constitutes as dismissing someone's opinion  

The "disagreements" that led to the topic being locked yesterday (which were removed for the sake of tidying the thread) were a result of members insulting each other's intelligence and, I shit you not, criticizing their moral compass over their opinions on a CGI hedgehog.  It shouldn't be hard to abstain from doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

He's right in saying that the hate/complaining is bringing attention to this movie. There's no such thing as bad publicity when it comes to a studio 

Have to agreed, because all of this is just bringing more attention to the movie. But, disagreed, that there aren't that much positive reaction about the Pokemon from a lot of people. I hear a lot of people seem to be excited on that movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Indigo Rush said:

I mean, if we're really doing this... @Mayor D did this with results that don't exactly support your viewpoint, for what it's worth. 

It's not worth it at all. Both for or against 'Oh it's Sonic'. 

Because you'll either get people who don't realise it's Sonic at all, like my dad.

Or you'll get people who go "Oh that's Sonic' 

Then you have a sliding scale in between... It's at the point where peoples responses become more of a question like "Is that Sonic?" That's the point where people think they know who it is, but are still unsure. Which is pretty poor showing when this is supposed to be an iconic recognisable character. 

2 minutes ago, CaptainRobo said:

Have to agreed, because all of this is just bringing more attention to the movie. 

And in the meantime completely souring the reputation of the brand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mayor D said:

It's at the point where peoples responses become more of a question like "Is that Sonic?" That's the point where people think they know who it is, but are still unsure. Which is pretty poor showing when this is supposed to be an iconic recognisable character. 

That's kind of where I draw the line at the design being pretty poor. It's easy for us to say it's Sonic because we're so familiar with the character that we can pick out the basic design cues, which the film design certainly follows. Blue, stands upright, beige muzzle and belly, spiky hair and quills, green eyes and wears red and white sneakers, mainly. It's Sonic, but the way they executed it is very different from what it normally is, and I argue that it shouldn't have bothered going in this direction. I don't think they should ever go for a live action film with this character.

Mania feels like a fever dream right now. Are we sure we deserved it? Such a fluke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CaptainRobo said:

Is he right, because the movie is gaining more attention despite the controversy?

 

As the old saying goes, there is no such thing as bad publicity. Just consider this, despite the negative responses the Sonic movie was the number one trend on twitter when the design leaked. There is no way that went unnoticed and it would have created interest which is what the movie needs. As unhappy as many fans are, the more vocal they are about it the more attention they bring to movie which will allow other people to form their own unbiased opinions about it. It works out quite well for Paramount who can rely on word of mouth to create awareness of the movie without having to spend excessively on marketing.

11 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

let's just say that I could instantly tell who that character is even if I wasn't a hardcore Sonic fan.

I know you're trying to defend the design but using yourself in a hypothetical you can't provide proof for isn't going to work for your argument. I'd actually recommend that you get someone to film you going around and just asking totally random people if they know who the character is in the latest image followed by asking them about their familiarity with Sonic after their answer and then posting the results on YouTube. It'll support your argument better and you can get word of the movie out there which will give you more people to talk about with so it's a win-win situation for you unless everyone you talk to has no idea that that is Sonic. Considering Sonic's cultural footprint though I personally think that is very unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Showed the full render to my dad earlier. He knew it was Sonic, but also, in his words knew that "he didn't look right". He had no qualms when I showed him Detective Pikachu afterwards though. Not that he was ever the target audience or ever likely to see the films, but its just another example of someone recognising uncanny valley.

 

This latest shot is just the strangest yet. I think they're going for a wind-rush kind of shot, showing the speed against his face, causing the mouth to be open like that...but hell does that mouth look goofy. Then the eyes...at first I thought the irises were too big, but the more I look at them, the more Sonic appears cross-eyed.

I also can't tell if his hands have been obscured by his wrists as he runs, or if they're suddenly blue fists.

Finally, is it just me or is there no depth to his legs? Like, it appears he's stood still bending forward, not running. Or is he in the process of launching himself for a jump, based on the red blur for his shoes?

I'm no art analyst and not great at putting my thoughts into words on subjects like this, the whole thing is just "off" to me on so many levels.

 

One last thing actually - I know the whole "no such thing as bad publicity" argument, but considering Sonic's general reputation on the internet, all it seems to me is we're going more into meme territory than people becoming legitimately interested in seeing the movie. I don't think that will necessarily translate to a big box office. Maybe a respectable opening weekend, and a sharp decline. Still, who knows, script could be great with an interesting trailer...I just don't see reason for optimism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough @Tara.

Thinking about it I might personally feel that that saying works though since one of the arguments I've seen is that the movie should appeal to those who left the franchise and are still nostalgic enough for it to want to see it on the big screen. Of course since those same people also argue that the movie isn't for the fans I'm not quite sure how that works and it makes my use of the phrase come across as ignorant at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That I can recognize that the design is clearly meant to be Sonic is not inherently a point in its favor, or something that makes it "not that bad." By rooting itself, however loosely, in at least somewhat resembling Sonic, I just see a creepy ass eyes and weirdo proportions that bastardize what I think is perhaps the most beautifully effective character design of all time in order to fit the world of their movie. Yet this design still doesn't actually appear "real" or "grounded" in anyway, they just made an extra freaky looking version of a cartoon. It's a failure on all fronts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PeterPancake said:

Also, that model clearly looks instantly recognizable. There is nothing inherently bad about it 

It became recognisable once someone told me it was Sonic. My first impression was "horrible live-action/CGI remake of another beloved cartoon" before realising that it was actually Sonic. For me, at least.

And I'm not kidding nor exaggerating either. Those were my very real thoughts. Now that I know that it's Sonic, it's just bad. Like, bootleg-toy-sold-by-someone-at-the-Saturday-market-that-the-merchant-doesn't-actually-know-or-care-what-it-is-and-confuses-passers-who-walk-past bad.

It's recognisable... At the cost of what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Tara said:

"No such thing as bad publicity" only works if negative publicity is good in the eyes of someone else.  Tommy Wiseau may be infamous for The Room, but as far as I know, he's not making a killing off of it.  In fact, if Wikipedia is to be believed, the box office returns for that movie were... er...

ba249170792f13080fc5aee2e52835a3.png

...not good.

"No such thing as bad publicity" is a fallacy that people need to stop using without thinking about why something that has garnered negative attention becomes successful.

Not a good comparison, because no one knew the Room existed when it first was debuted. It wasn't well known in geek circles until years after its release, and it didn't receive true cult status until around 5 years after its release. I think it's fair to say that now, when it is actually well-known and notorious, it's made back the money Wiseau spent, especially since he's worked on so many other projects in the last 5 years.

But I agree that infamy doesn't necessarily equate to sales. I know the terrible games PewDiePie plays on his channel, for example, barely sell on Steam.

I think for something 'so bad it's good' to work, it has to have genuine passion and something endearing about it. The Room is endearing, but something like the Terrible Bulk isn't. I bet barely anyone has bought Bulk. To be blunt, I think the Sonic movie will probably be cynical and shallow, which will be its undoing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again there is only one word I like to describe this movie look for Sonic:

 

AAAHHH!!!

Three more words come to mind:

What

The

And of course: hellisthat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PeterPancake said:

He's right in saying that the hate/complaining is bringing attention to this movie. There's no such thing as bad publicity when it comes to a studio 

That's actually not true. That myth has been proven wrong many times before. The internet will often rally behind making fun of something that looks horrible and move onto the next thing without going out to spend money on the thing they were mocking all the time.

Ghostbusters 2016 thought it could ride it's controversy to the bank but the exact opposite happened. Sony jumped the gun creating a new studio called "Ghost Corps" and then had to watch it die when the movie lost them money. Which is embarrassing. 

And of course, everyone was making fun of the "Dark Universe" where they tried to take the old Universal monsters and turn them into the Avengers. They released "The Mummy" with that "Dark Universe" logo attached to it and it bombed. And it remains the only movie with the "Dark Universe" logo in it. Which is also embarrassing.

This movie, had it been managed correctly, might still not have been a huge success but I do feel like, as is, it's going to flop.

There probably are people out there who will see it to make fun of it and genuine fans who find it fine but I don't see the number of people seeing things that way rising up to allow for a success.

Especially considering the track record of other video game movies. The only ones at the top of my head that managed to be successful was the Angry Birds Movie (which was not only an animated film but also distributed by Illumination, a company that markets the hell out of it's stuff and that people know the name of) and Warcraft (which bombed domestically but got lucky due to making a killing in China).

So. Sorry to say, I don't think the "live-action Sonic the Hedgehog, buddy-cop movie starring Jim Carrey as Dr. Robotnik" is going to be the one to break the mold and prove successful. 

Edit: Angry Birds was Sony. That other studio that makes (mostly) shit films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Plasme said:

Not a good comparison, because no one knew the Room existed when it first was debuted. It wasn't well known in geek circles until years after its release, and it didn't receive true cult status until around 5 years after its release. I think it's fair to say that now, when it is actually well-known and notorious, it's made back the money Wiseau spent, especially since he's worked on so many other projects in the last 5 years. 

I mean, fair.  But two things to keep in mind:

1) If Wikipedia is to be believed, the majority of his undertakings following The Room have been acting credits.  A not small percentage of those acting credits are to playing himself.  When he's not playing himself, he's playing a character meant to cash in on himself.  The things he has produced, directed, and/or written are still very small ventures by comparison to other films.

2) Despite its infamy, The Room (and many works by Wiseau) still only have a cult following, which isn't really compatible with the arguments being tossed around that these changes are being made to appeal to a mainstream demographic.

But that does tie into another point:  Aggressive marketing.  The job of a marketer and promoter is explicitly to get tickets sold.  It shouldn't be a surprise when they manage to do their job well, despite the absolutely absurd premise they may be trying to sell.  As such, it's a bit of a fallacy to assume they every ticket, or even most tickets, sold will be done so as a result of an educated decision to see the film based on its individual merits.  There is a margin of error, I guess is what I'm saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

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.