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

[Lord-Dreamerz]

21 minutes ago, BaronGrackle said:

Yes... and people who hate the criticisms should understand that this isn't one of the complaints. Plot references are EVEN BETTER than easter eggs. The only reason we're talking about easter eggs is because it was offered up as an alternative to the straight references, with defenders telling people to look for game-related easter eggs.

Can't tell if you are talking to me directly or talking in general. Because I already know how this discussion started and I obviously agree that mere references & Easter eggs don't make a story better by itself nor is it a real selling point for a movie.

[Witto150]

2 hours ago, Sonic Fan J said:

Anyway, that was a really long wall of text that was probably fairly superfluous for the most part, but I hope at the very least it helps you see that at least some of us have really, really, thought about why this doesn't work and what could work for us without disregarding what works for Hollywood. Indiana Jones has far more parallels to what Sonic is for a Hollywood movie and should have been the blueprint if veering away from the games rather than a buddy cop road trip where Sonic's presence actually hinders development through the characters' own desires and pursuing them. 

Thank you for such a long answer. This, for the first time, helps me understand more the concerns as you went and showed me what you think can't work and why while showing an example of what type of story could work.

I mentioned game special zone rings, as I didn't think people would know about Archie that much. I saw some people saying Scourge is OC - so yeah, Archie Sonic is not that well known, it seems XD Even if they are different, their basic function is warping/teleportation. Which both examples, games/comic, have but just in a different form. But yeah, they aren't exchangeable. Also, we can't say now how they work or what needs to be done for them to work. I mean in the movie, as a game logic/mechanism is different.

If Tom is struggling with what to do, why can't Sonic, a being Tom can't wrap his head around,  push him in the right direction? It kinda reminds me when MC gets dragged into a bigger problem where they overcome their insecurities by understanding what they really can do when faced with a bigger problem, or that their problem isn't that big as they were just scared to do the first step. Maybe there is a similar theme?

I'm not trying to force somebody to watch it, but if they say "Show me Easter Eggs" when they claim there are none and I say "Well, these are known", and they reply "those aren't Easter Eggs" - I have to ask what is Easter Egg? If I see a scene that resembles another from a different movie, I do call it an Easter Egg or at least a reference or just a nice surprise.

It's hard not to be angry at people saying "It's gonna suck" when all we had was "there will be Sonic CGI hybrid movie". I mean - Are hybrid movies so bad? (Because this is what I get when people say this T_T Or is this CGI hybrid bad only because it's Sonic's movie? Like it's gonna be bad because it is Sonic?) We have tons of them. Like, even if you say Movie A is a bad one, and it has 50% at best in pro-reviews, and see four more sequels with the last being the first with 85% - you have to ask - If those previous movies were soooo bad, why people watched the next ones? Why they were created? All I can think of is - Even if critics didn't like it, the movies itself are good to watch with fun, action, some character development and effects.

A long time ago there was CGI hybrid pitch for Sonic movie with a human kid as his partner that had to save Sonic during the finale, it was scrapped in the end and the plot is now on the internet. Funny is people under the video say it sounds like a fun kid movie, but if it was done nowadays, I can imagine people calling it stupid.

[Splash the Otter]

6 hours ago, Witto150 said:

So, what do you like about Sonic? Character - Seems to be spot on. Action - the missile and chase scene seemed fine. Puns/chatterbox - Seems okay to me too. Voice - I have no problem. Adventure - We will visit many places on Earth (Big cities, forest, desert, maybe even military stronghold, Robotnik's hi-tech lab, ...) and adventure is about traveling. Character growth - It's hinted there are similar scenes as well. Getting stronger - Sonic's speed is supposed to evolve during the movie. Design - I'm fine with it, and a lot of artists tried to draw him and find out this choice isn't that half-bad as people claim. It has its flaws, but who doesn't?

I like the characters (of which there are only two in this movie) and setting (which has been replaced with the real world).

[Sonic Fan J]

16 minutes ago, Witto150 said:

Thank you for such a long answer. This, for the first time, helps me understand more the concerns as you went and showed me what you think can't work and why while showing an example of what type of story could work.

Glad it helped. I honestly thought I went overboard honestly so it makes me glad that it helped clear some things up for you.

18 minutes ago, Witto150 said:

I mentioned game special zone rings, as I didn't think people would know about Archie that much. I saw some people saying Scourge is OC - so yeah, Archie Sonic is not that well known, it seems XD Even if they are different, their basic function is warping/teleportation. Which both examples, games/comic, have but just in a different form. But yeah, they aren't exchangeable. Also, we can't say now how they work or what needs to be done for them to work. I mean in the movie, as a game logic/mechanism is different.

Yeah, Archie definitely isn't as densely known as it's fans like to think. It is fairly widely known though as I've seen Japanese fanart, Australians obsessed with it, people from Hungary and all over Europe and South America. So while it's widely known, that familiarity is sparse at best.

And knowing why you went with the special stage rings makes sense now too so thanks for clearing that up for me. Though it also doesn't surprise me how few people are aware of the teleporting ability of certain rings in general as the last Genesis/Mega Drive release was over twenty years ago and Sonic Advance 3 didn't have a lot of penetration into the market. There are so many fans who started during the adventure era and after who also never played the handhelds that it really doesn't surprise me that people may not know. Then there are also those who don't like the 2D games and just don't touch them resulting in their lack of knowledge.

23 minutes ago, Witto150 said:

If Tom is struggling with what to do, why can't Sonic, a being Tom can't wrap his head around,  push him in the right direction? It kinda reminds me when MC gets dragged into a bigger problem where they overcome their insecurities by understanding what they really can do when faced with a bigger problem, or that their problem isn't that big as they were just scared to do the first step. Maybe there is a similar theme?

Sonic can and should push Tom just like Tom should be able to and needs to push Sonic for their relationship to work. Even without any plans to ever see the movie it would be disappointing if they didn't. The big problem I see with it right now though is there is a distinct difference to dealing with an alien and the government enabled terrorist who wants to capture him than the day to day affairs of keeping the peace in a big city. Interacting with Sonic will definitely help Tom develop and test his abilities to act on the fly learn what he can and can't do physically. There is an awful lot Tom can get from interacting with Sonic, but proving he has what it takes to be a big city cop is so much more than being good in tense situations. They're is mediating (a useless skill when dealing with Eggman as your villain), keeping tracks of massive amounts of information and the relationships you build up on your beat. there is understanding the laws and the ways they can and need to be enforced as well as what neighborhoods and city blocks suffer what crimes and are stalked by what criminal elements. Sonic and Eggman are both unfortunately fully flamboyant in most cases, especially when dealing with each other, and that obscures any room to develop recognition of nuance and subtlety (two things Eggman has never had in any iteration and that Jim Carrey is obviously not portraying in the trailer). So yeah, Sonic can help Tom a lot, and for the story to feel like Tom is an important part to it he has to push Sonic as well. the problem I have though is that Sonic as an alien, human responsibility ignorant character can't help Tom face everything he needs to prove his worth as a cop. As a result I don't find Sonic a good pairing with Tom's dreams and it would take some really special writing to make it work in a way that I would be satisfied with. With everything I've seen though it is unlikely the movie is even concerned with that and that feels like a waste to me.

42 minutes ago, Witto150 said:

I'm not trying to force somebody to watch it, but if they say "Show me Easter Eggs" when they claim there are none and I say "Well, these are known", and they reply "those aren't Easter Eggs" - I have to ask what is Easter Egg? If I see a scene that resembles another from a different movie, I do call it an Easter Egg or at least a reference or just a nice surprise.

Well, I can't speak for others but an Easter Egg to me is usually a nod to obscure trivia from the same IP that's usually a blink and you'll miss it moment. Beyond Sonic saying "gotta go fast" which I only ever see as a way to mock the IP these days I don't recall anything in the trailer that I would call an Easter Egg. As I said though, that's just for me and I can't speak for others.

45 minutes ago, Witto150 said:

It's hard not to be angry at people saying "It's gonna suck" when all we had was "there will be Sonic CGI hybrid movie". I mean - Are hybrid movies so bad? (Because this is what I get when people say this T_T Or is this CGI hybrid bad only because it's Sonic's movie? Like it's gonna be bad because it is Sonic?) We have tons of them. Like, even if you say Movie A is a bad one, and it has 50% at best in pro-reviews, and see four more sequels with the last being the first with 85% - you have to ask - If those previous movies were soooo bad, why people watched the next ones? Why they were created? All I can think of is - Even if critics didn't like it, the movies itself are good to watch with fun, action, some character development and effects.

I definitely understand getting bothered by people being too knee jerk (though I've been guilty of it as well) but this is kind of an example one should study history so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Unfortunately most of the people using those movies like Yogi Bear, Alvin and the Chipmunks, the Smurfs, Woody Woodpecker, etc. is that to them these were bad movies and all took cartoon characters who were not designed in any capacity to be seen through a real world lens. So when you try to use them as an example it doesn't work because to them the Sonic Movie is following the same path to being a terrible movie. It then doesn't help that one of the early script writers was saying what movie to think of (GotG vs the Smurfs) and then when the plot leaked it proved him wrong with the trailer supporting the leak. It created a loss of trust and only allowed people to further dig in their heels based on their history with what they considered bad movies. So reviews and sales mean nothing to them and then combine that with those most vocal about the movies also being negative it reinforces that negative perspective. So while you can understandably be frustrated about it, the reasoning behind it usually clarifies. That and people have a tendency of trying to be concise and/or relying on hot takes to get attention. It's an unfortunate situation but one that is more culturally ingrained than it seems.

55 minutes ago, Witto150 said:

A long time ago there was CGI hybrid pitch for Sonic movie with a human kid as his partner that had to save Sonic during the finale, it was scrapped in the end and the plot is now on the internet. Funny is people under the video say it sounds like a fun kid movie, but if it was done nowadays, I can imagine people calling it stupid.

At the very least I can assure you I wouldn't like. Kids saving the super hero (easily my least favorite episode of Batman TAS) is one of those tropes that rubs me all kinds of wrong along with body swaps, circular time travel, and replacing yourself in an other reality. Those are plot lines that have always felt tacky to me for as long as I've remember and even as a little kid did the one in the above did not make me feel more special but felt like a disservice to my heroes. As a result I probably wouldn't defend it if people did insult it.

Otherwise though, I appreciate being able to hold a level headed discussion with you despite the fact that we are on opposite ends of our feelings towards the movie. It's nice being able to see why it's liked while discussing why I dislike it with out it turning into a desperate need to convince the other that one viewpoint or the other is right. Again I appreciate that so thanks.

[BaronGrackle]

1 hour ago, Lord-Dreamerz said:

Can't tell if you are talking to me directly or talking in general. Because I already know how this discussion started and I obviously agree that mere references & Easter eggs don't make a story better by itself nor is it a real selling point for a movie.

Talking in general. Trying to pre-empt any countercomplaints of, "Do you want easter eggs or not?!"

[CaptainRobo]

This was in the Toy Factory website.

 

Here is the link for those who want to see it.

https://www.thetoyfactory.biz/licensed-cont.html

[Witto150]

On 6/17/2019 at 4:28 PM, Sonic Fan J said:

Otherwise though, I appreciate being able to hold a level headed discussion with you despite the fact that we are on opposite ends of our feelings towards the movie. It's nice being able to see why it's liked while discussing why I dislike it with out it turning into a desperate need to convince the other that one viewpoint or the other is right. Again I appreciate that so thanks.

My words I'm sorry if I sometimes sound aggressive, I swear I try not to. And I may have nitpicking questions as just some things don't make sense to me ^_^;

I still believe people should see the movie first before saying it's bad. So what if a few CGI movies were bad. I read Transformers have like 5-6 movies with only the first one and Bumblebee being the good ones (and it still had so cliché plot, but the slower pacing was enjoyable - I saw the last one, and yeah, I can say it's an okay movie. The Robot CGI was pretty cool.). Rest was like crazy action ride with a minimal plot or some character development. If it's true, why making more movies when they were "trainwreck"? If we get a lot of bad fully CGI movies, should we stop making them?

A lot of movies have not so good trailer but are good. Others have the best scenes inside the trailer and are quite bad. But how do we know this? We can know only after seeing the movie. But before - that's assuming (just like I assume the movie is going to be good to decent watch) - unless you saw the pre-screening which seems a lot of people ignore. Maybe they think those people are fakers as they enjoyed the movie with 7/10 in average rating (as a few of them said/wrote) or just don't know about them.

Why not go with neutral expectation? Some movies are eye-candy and have a sucky story. Some look strange in visuals, but their story leaves you with tons of questions. I know Sonic won't be about deep stuff, but more about friendship, adventure, and action - and that is a combination I like. Heck, I even read a few romance books (and romance is a genre I dislike a lot) and I enjoyed them because I gave them a chance to show me what they are made of. So, instead of acting like "seers", let's see what future has for us with our own eyes = see it and then judge

8 hours ago, CaptainRobo said:

This was in the Toy Factory website.

 

Here is the link for those who want to see it.

https://www.thetoyfactory.biz/licensed-cont.html

Cool, maybe there will be Baby Movie Sonic plush We found finally got official Baby Sonic I hope it could have paw pads and no gloves - what baby wears gloves outside of winter (or when super small to protect themselves from their nails) XD

[StaticMania]

1 hour ago, Witto150 said:

I still believe people should see the movie first before saying it's bad.

Until it comes out...people who have disliked it so far can say it's bad all they want.

Then when it does come out, they either will or won't have that opinion verified by viewer consensus...and decide if it's worth it or not to verify their opinion themselves by watching it.

[Rabid-Coot]

While we're talking about Toy Factory again remember they're cheaper plush for claw machines so keep expectaions relativly low.

[SaturnWolf]

2 hours ago, Witto150 said:

I still believe people should see the movie first before saying it's bad. So what if a few CGI movies were bad.

This is the exact kind of goal post moving that gets us nowhere. If fans can deduce from a few seconds of footage that Sonic 4 doesn't play like the Classics, then I don't see how it's unreasonable for fans to think that a movie, based on a trailer, plot synopsis, casting, leaked style guide, among other things, will be bad.

[Sonic Fan J]

19 minutes ago, DreamSaturn said:

This is the exact kind of goal post moving that gets us nowhere. If fans can deduce from a few seconds of footage that Sonic 4 doesn't play like the Classics, then I don't see how it's unreasonable for fans to think that a movie, based on a trailer, plot synopsis, casting, leaked style guide, among other things, will be bad.

Not to defend a viewpoint I'm personally critical of, but this is a bit of a false equivalency that you're using that barely relates at all. The disdain for the movie is based on personal preference and expectations where as Sonic 4 not playing like the classics is an objective that those who obsessed over the most minute understanding of were able o see well in advance. Even when one can prove that the majority thinks something is ugly or likely you fail you have to consider that hat is a collection of subjective viewpoints that happen to align. The only fact that can be gleaned from that is that the majority, which can literally be defined as ≥50.0...1%, think it is ugly and that it will fail. It's not a fair comparison even if your intentions are in the right place.

So onto the problem in general

2 hours ago, Witto150 said:

I still believe people should see the movie first before saying it's bad. So what if a few CGI movies were bad. I read Transformers have like 5-6 movies with only the first one and Bumblebee being the good ones (and it still had so cliché plot, but the slower pacing was enjoyable - I saw the last one, and yeah, I can say it's an okay movie. The Robot CGI was pretty cool.). Rest was like crazy action ride with a minimal plot or some character development. If it's true, why making more movies when they were "trainwreck"? If we get a lot of bad fully CGI movies, should we stop making them?

The problem is that you aren't taking into consideration how much affect that first opinion has on most people (my dad and I were just discussing first opinions the other day) and a number of the other factors that result in these outcomes. Most importantly however is that most forums like this one are made up of eth minority of people who will be consuming the product in any form. We are though particularly loud so we can seem like a lot more voices than we are. So these other movies succeeding for a number of entries is typically due to the silent majority continuing to partake to some extent since the declining numbers speak for themselves. For most studios whose primary purpose is to make money that is enough reason to let the creators go at it again regardless of critical or fan reception. That is one of the unique hurdles that the Sonic movie has encountered though, like New Coke their was enough public outcry and disdain that the prospect of making money looked threatened and the studio doubled back to avoid that and recover as much of the production costs as possible even if it has cost them more money in the process. Considering that let's break it down a little bit further

2 hours ago, Witto150 said:

I still believe people should see the movie first before saying it's bad.

There are three things to consider here.

1) The marketing department is using millions of dollars to convince us that we should want to see it. They have failed at that in part to not putting out a great trailer which overrides the controversial design and because they had to promote a movie from a franchise whose main character in the 90s had a design rivaling Mickey Mouse in global recognition. That means you have a lot of people already having a pre conceived notion of what Sonic should look like that they've passed o to their children, nieces, and nephews. Thus you have a very large amount of people who are trained to think of Sonic in a particular way making the marketing team's job even harder since the trailer shows nothing outside of Sonic smashing an unrecognizable and unnamed even Dr Eggman/Robotnik that one could relate to the IP in any existing interpretation. It's a astronomically hard sell at this point.

2) You frequent mentioning of the test screening actually references back to saying see it to know for sure. Trust your own eyes in other words, and considering the one South American screening got me hopeful we would get something I found better than the motion poster and not less appealing to me, "seeing is believing" became a very good point of reference for me and a lot of others. it what I meant when I said that people have felt betrayed, and it definitely was not in a good way based on the response from Paramount to rebuild Sonic for the movie.

3)I wonder if you are familiar with the saying "speak with your wallet". If not it is a saying that generally means if you want the company trying to convince you to spend your money on their product that you don't like then don't spend any money on it. At this point most people contributing to this thread who don't like it have expressed a dislike of the live-action setting for Sonic, a human audience surrogate who will naturally take away from Sonic and Eggman to justify their presence, the lack of most game elements beyond use as Easter Eggs and a general avoidance of the source material, a generic plot of human with problems gets help from alien (in)directly while helping alien (part of why E.T is kind of a horrible thing to say to think of for this movie as again it makes Tom the main character and not Sonic), the movie design for Sonic, Eggman, and Eggman's robots, as well as the lack of that fantastical and surreal worlds presented in the games no less the cast of characters, and even Sonic's unusual never seen before lightning and EMP powers.
In short, regardless of how valid or not the complaints seem to you, to the person expressing them they are extremely important and enough reason to dislike the movie and express that in any form they can think of, up to and including not spending money on the movie.

So, while you're right that one can not, and should not pass final judgement on something they have yet to experience for themselves, they can say that it looks bad to them and that they don't want to give it the chance to prove them wrong. Now of course you also have to consider that sometimes when you see someone say "this is bad" that they simply aren't fully detailing their opinion as they are being economical with their time and are frequently action under the presumption that when they say they think something is bad and going to fail that everyone already understands all of eth additional information that goes into those words. And frankly they are not wrong to as most people talk to those they immediately know who typically do already presume all of that background information when the statement is said or something similar enough. When those presumptions don't exist typically that is when "why do you think that" should be asked. Unfortunately not everyone is willing to elaborate simply due to either an inability or refusal to believe that someone doesn't see something the same way they do. In those cases it is usually best to move on as there is no need to hurt yourself trying to engage with people like that.

3 hours ago, Witto150 said:

A lot of movies have not so good trailer but are good. Others have the best scenes inside the trailer and are quite bad. But how do we know this? We can know only after seeing the movie. But before - that's assuming (just like I assume the movie is going to be good to decent watch) - unless you saw the pre-screening which seems a lot of people ignore. Maybe they think those people are fakers as they enjoyed the movie with 7/10 in average rating (as a few of them said/wrote) or just don't know about them.

Why not go with neutral expectation? Some movies are eye-candy and have a sucky story. Some look strange in visuals, but their story leaves you with tons of questions. I know Sonic won't be about deep stuff, but more about friendship, adventure, and action - and that is a combination I like. Heck, I even read a few romance books (and romance is a genre I dislike a lot) and I enjoyed them because I gave them a chance to show me what they are made of. So, instead of acting like "seers", let's see what future has for us with our own eyes = see it and then judge

My favorite example of a movie I found great but had horrible trailers was Get Smart starring Steve Carrell. Problem there though is that it mostly looked like they were being untruthful to the character of Maxwell Smart and not making him an elite agent like we was. In other words it was appearing unfaithful to the source material just like the Sonic movie. The big problem here though is that only Maxwell Smart seemed off (fortunately he wasn't, didn't even miss it by that much) where with the Sonic movie everything seems off or looks off. Bright fantastical worlds that can support darker narratives and themes. Nope, just the good ol' USA as Hollywood is wont to stick with. Oshima's iconic design that once rivaled Mickey Mouse in global recognition. Nope, instead a strangely human take on a cartoon hedgehog that doesn't even try beyond the most basic description of the character (I am kind of surprised that they didn't take inspiration from how Sonic's eyes were in the OVA and just give him a white raccoon mask to simulate his mono eye/eye mask). Eggman's colorful and inventive robots that highlight his playful and goofy sides. Nope, just generic Hollywood evil drones in black and red. And it goes on and on.

This of course leads us to your question of why not go in with neutral expectations and waiting to judge until after you've seen it with your own eyes. Well, if we look at the above paragraph there are very hefty amount of expectations that go with using Sonic and not meeting them is frequently met with disappointment (Paramount is alone here as SEGA isn't safe from that either). Now the problem that your idea of stay neutral is very hard to have as usually the only way someone can stay neutral is to be completely unfamiliar with something. If you don't know anything you don't know what to expect and can't have any expectations; only hopes of liking what you see. But you won't find that wit hSOnic here at least. This is a Sonic fansite so everyone here knows Sonic and has there own expectations for him so there is no way they can look at the movie and stay neutral. Even major supporters like @PeterPancake and @Myst are so overjoyed to see Sonic on the big screen that their expectations of the joy that should bring most Sonic fans ill prepared them for the reality that unfolded. They expected the love of Sonic that Sonic fans have would have made them love the movie but their expectations underestimated just how much people love Sonic. They love him to the point that they only want to see him done right and done justice, and unfortunately even if this movie were to put Shakespeare to shame it isn't doing Sonic right or doing justice to the brand. it is changing nigh everything and telling people that what they love can't succeed. Believe it or not but that is very easy to take as a personal insult because you're effectively being told what you like sucks and can't entertain anyone, yourself included. Arrogant hyperbole like that leaves people actually hoping for failure just to spite those who wronged them and prove that they had no understanding of why something was popular in the first place which has already been proven just by saying they have to change it or it doesn't work It's a bit of a messy situation where respect was lost the moment the creators didn't show any to what they were adapting and the fanbase of nearly thirty years. When you start by insulting people, no matter how unintentional, you lower people's expectations out of the gate making it even more difficult to have neutral expectations.

There is in the end a lot of negativity around this project because their is a lot of love from the fans and the creators of the movie, but the creators lacked respect and created distrust and lowered expectations. When those lowered expectations were exceeded in ways that were not well received it only made the original distrust stronger and the emotions built from feelings of betrayal that much fiercer. Unfortunately no amount of positivity on your end can overcome that instilled bitterness that you've been seeing here. just know though that it is so deeply ingrained because of how much everyone here loves Sonic, even if it is their view of Sonic that they potentially love instead as it is still Sonic.

[Myst]

Today at Cineeurope 2019, Paramount showed off more footage of the Sonic movie, focusing on Robotnik instead, joking that Sonic's face lift has pushed the film back to 2020. No video of the footage, though. =/

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/top-gun-quiet-place-sequels-previewed-by-paramount-at-cineeurope-2019-1219663

 

[Tarnish]

18 hours ago, Witto150 said:

I still believe people should see the movie first before saying it's bad. So what if a few CGI movies were bad.

This "Buy product first before criticizing" mentality is probably every corporation's wet dream.

[Rabid-Coot]

You might not be able to truly judge a movie until you see it but you can judge when and how that viewing will occur based on the trailers etc. You might decide to see it at the cinema or wait for the digital/disc release maybe catch it on some streaming service or maybe even wait for the TV broadcast.

Personally I do not like what I have seen and will most likely be waiting for it to be on TV a few years later.

[BaronGrackle]

3 hours ago, Rabid-Coot said:

You might not be able to truly judge a movie until you see it but you can judge when and how that viewing will occur based on the trailers etc. You might decide to see it at the cinema or wait for the digital/disc release maybe catch it on some streaming service or maybe even wait for the TV broadcast.

Personally I do not like what I have seen and will most likely be waiting for it to be on TV a few years later.

It happens. I'm a diehard Warcraft fan who never saw the film. I SERIOUSLY considered grabbing it from the $5 bin at Walmart... but no.

With Sonic? I'll hope for streaming, and we'll see from there.

[StarWarsSonic]

Who thinks Paramount should just put this straight on Netflix and skip on a cinematic release. It wouldn’t be a first time a film ends up going straight to a Netflix release.

Think about it.. a bad film that gets released on Netflix gets laughed at but quickly forgotten about. Being Netflix only gives a film a slight obscurity.

A bad film that gets a cinematic release...not only will the film get annihilated my critics and be seriously mocked by the general public but it will also be a huge financial disaster.

Let’s face it, people are willing to watch a bad movie for free illegally or on a subscription service like Netflix because it’s not costing you anything! You can watch lots of good films with your Netflix account and you are getting your money’s worth. 

Buying an expensive cinema ticket to just see this film? I just don’t see many people paying that much to watch something bad.

I just think that financially it makes more sense to put the Sonic Movie on Netflix so Paramount can get some profits back but will also avoid the huge financial flop this film is gonna turn out to be. Plus a bad Netflix film won’t damage Sonics reputation as badly as a bad cinematic release where every critic under the sun is gonna give this 1/5 stars.

[Rabid-Coot]

With the added costs of the extra 3 months of work I don't think a dump on streaming is being considered as an option.

[Graystripe2000]

The movie had some stuff shown at CineEurope.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/top-gun-quiet-place-sequels-previewed-by-paramount-at-cineeurope-2019-1219663

[Dr Ryan]

There's no way they'll dump this on a streaming site. Clearly the studio have high hopes for this film. If they didn't, they'd have just released it with the shit design, made back what they could and then dropped the sequel plans. The fact that they're willing to chuck a load more cash at this movie to make it better is a clear indication they see a lot of potential in it. Redoing all that CGI on top of an already 90m+ budget. Fair play to them.

And if they do have Tyson Hesse doing the redesign (that was what was implied, right?) then Sonic should look pretty awesome in the final movie.

[SaturnWolf]

1 minute ago, Dr Ryan said:

And if they do have Tyson Hesse doing the redesign (that was what was implied, right?) then Sonic should look pretty awesome in the final movie.

In theory, the 2D art should look fine. That is, assuming they give him the freedom to make a good design and make a model that doesn't look like a Lovecraftian horror.

[CaptainRobo]

 

[Red Hot Jack]

People can judge what we HAVE about the movie, that's for sure, and it's actually fun, the only thing that was heavily criticized is Sonic's design and it's being fixed as we speak. You can all go "I'm not trusting Paramount, they only want cash" but that doesn't mean I have to like that cynical attitude.

[StaticMania]

Does Paramount only want cash?

Is it true?

[Rabid-Coot]

They'll take cards but don't want cheques.

[SaturnWolf]

I wonder if they'll accept Bitcoin.