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

[Tani Coyote]

I think SEGA gave up on serious stories for the most part given the common reaction beyond the fanbase is along the lines of "Sonic's a cartoon hedgehog and thus cannot be taken seriously." They have thus given the middle finger to anyone who wants more than a childish story in favor of picking up a possibly larger youth demographic.

It's douchey, but it makes perfect business sense. They ultimately want to capture reviewers' favor, and critics don't seem to think very highly of Sonic's more serious stories (that SA2 occupies the second highest score on Metacritic is amazing, presumably due to the power of nostalgia); that includes people inside the fandom, even. Discarding serious elements for the lighthearted makes sense... even if they've overdone it with the immature humor at times. I think SEGA overall has just abandoned all hope of appealing to a more mature demographic, as the only way to do that would most likely be to anthroise the entire cast and make this an FPS brand.

Personally, I'm just happy I generally don't feel very critical of the direction the games or other continuities go. It makes me a bad person to go to for recommendations, but it makes it a lot easier to keep enjoying the franchise when there's a virtual hurricane about it all the time. I guess I've found a way to stay perpetually in the eye of the storm.

[Blacklightning]

I just want to say one thing regarding the "aimed at kids" argument.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xmAC9Qu908

This came from a kid's show.

 

A show with a broad demograph can do jokes only kids would find funny just as much as it can do an occasional gag that would fly right over their heads. And it need not even apply strictly to humour either, the best of them can use a whole lot of themes younger audiences won't fully understand until they're older, but they won't let it get in the way of their enjoyment - meanwhile the older among them appreciate a nod like this, even if not so much the rest of the content it has to offer.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that being geared towards kids doesn't mean they're the only ones that can enjoy it? It shouldn't mean that, anyway, but I'm not gonna lie, it's been a while since I thought particularly deeply into it and I'm not sure how much things have changed since I stopped watching these things regularly.

[Tara]

A show with a broad demograph can do jokes only kids would find funny just as much as it can do an occasional gag that would fly right over their heads. And it need not even apply strictly to humour either, the best of them can use a whole lot of themes younger audiences won't fully understand until they're older, but they won't let it get in the way of their enjoyment - meanwhile the older among them appreciate a nod like this, even if not so much the rest of the content it has to offer.

I agree with what you're saying, but I think you're looking at it wrong.  I think the ideal practice would have themes that speak to both generations, not just one.  Like, okay.  Having an adult joke that goes over the kids' head.  That's fine and all, but why not have a joke that's actually funny to both generations?  At the very least, make the joke funny but has a deeper meaning behind it.  I don't want to use Ponies as an example because I know how people feel about that, but I can't think of another one right now so bare with me.

 

In the season 2 episode, Baby Cakes, one of the characters asks Mr. Cake how his children can have such vastly different genetic traits that neither of their parents share.  Mr. Cake details a verbose explanation of pony genetics, ending it nervously with, "Because that makes sense, right?"  To a kid, the obvious joke is that it doesn't make sense and that's why it's funny.  To an adult, however, it's obvious that Mr. Cake is in denial that his wife has been cheating on him.  This sort of humor is fine, to me, but I feel that the ideal practice should always be that the joke is funny in its own context to all the audiences involved.  That can be hard to do, though, and not something I expect Sega's writing team to fully pull off in any case.

[Tenko]

Come on guys, let's get our expectations in check here. Its Sega. And presumably a theatrical release, which means Hollywood rules.

Unless its full on CGI which seems to be the exception to this rule, there MUST be a human, because the audience needs something to relate to and are unable to relate to a character that isn't human according to the higher ups.

Because its a cartoon/game related series it will be given to a director that has little respect for the core material. Who's "popular" for making half assed versions of popular 80's and 90's icons recently and has a lot of ire, let's see, let's take Mr Bay for example.

With that in place you can predict the general premise. Sonic & Tails are aliens. Sonic is wisecracking and a bit of an ass, Tails is a full on geek. They get Chaos Warped (because they can't use the correct terminology to the series in every instance) here when Dr Robotnik (because its edgier than Eggman for a wider American audience) tries to fire off a super weapon that Sonic destroys at the final minute. Sonic meets a boy/teenager named Chris, they go off to find Tails. Robotnik meanwhile attacks an army base (insert GUN stuff in here to keep the fans happy and hey its Bay you need army dudes) and assimilates earths tech and vechicles turning them into robots (animal robots isn't "awesome" enough). Sonic, Tails and Chris with accompanying army dudes left alive from the attack join up and end up having to stop Robotnik from Chaos Warping the Death Egg to earth for his plan to turn all living things into mindless robot slaves.

Have popular actors doing voices and human parts and doing a horrible job. With Megan Fox as Chris's girlfriend Amy Rose. And also guest staring explosions. Also Sonic himself and other CGI characters get bare minimum screen time because people don't come to see the characters the movie is based on, they come to see human teen melodrama.

My work here is done.

[Snail--Day-And-Night]

Come on guys, let's get our expectations in check here. Its Sega. And presumably a theatrical release, which means Hollywood rules.

Unless its full on CGI which seems to be the exception to this rule, there MUST be a human, because the audience needs something to relate to and are unable to relate to a character that isn't human according to the higher ups.

Because its a cartoon/game related series it will be given to a director that has little respect for the core material. Who's "popular" for making half assed versions of popular 80's and 90's icons recently and has a lot of ire, let's see, let's take Mr Bay for example.

With that in place you can predict the general premise. Sonic & Tails are aliens. Sonic is wisecracking and a bit of an ass, Tails is a full on geek. They get Chaos Warped (because they can't use the correct terminology to the series in every instance) here when Dr Robotnik (because its edgier than Eggman for a wider American audience) tries to fire off a super weapon that Sonic destroys at the final minute. Sonic meets a boy/teenager named Chris, they go off to find Tails. Robotnik meanwhile attacks an army base (insert GUN stuff in here to keep the fans happy and hey its Bay you need army dudes) and assimilates earths tech and vechicles turning them into robots (animal robots isn't "awesome" enough). Sonic, Tails and Chris with accompanying army dudes left alive from the attack join up and end up having to stop Robotnik from Chaos Warping the Death Egg to earth for his plan to turn all living things into mindless robot slaves.

Have popular actors doing voices and human parts and doing a horrible job. With Megan Fox as Chris's girlfriend Amy Rose. And also guest staring explosions. Also Sonic himself and other CGI characters get bare minimum screen time because people don't come to see the characters the movie is based on, they come to see human teen melodrama.

My work here is done.

 

 

That's nighmare fuel man.

 

TBH my hope is that someone has respect for him over at Sony...

[Tenko]

That's nighmare fuel man.

TBH my hope is that someone has respect for him over at Sony...

Just be thankful I didn't go the "Sonic and Shadow are alien hedgehog brothers from another dimension, they need to put aside their differences after being accidentally sent to Earth...etc etc" route.

What's more frightening is that some franchises like Transformers have changed their current backstory or characters and made them tie in with the movies (like Bumblebee's design and lack of voice) and newer cartoons continuity (using the newer video game backstory and Prime's series of events) going forward. If Sega decided to do this should a prospective movie be popular or the new cartoon series took off....that's what scares me a little.

[Snail--Day-And-Night]

Just be thankful I didn't go the "Sonic and Shadow are alien hedgehog brothers from another dimension, they need to put aside their differences after being accidentally sent to Earth...etc etc" route.

What's more frightening is that some franchises like Transformers have changed their current backstory or characters and made them tie in with the movies (like Bumblebee's design and lack of voice) and newer cartoons continuity (using the newer video game backstory and Prime's series of events) going forward. If Sega decided to do this should a prospective movie be popular or the new cartoon series took off....that's what scares me a little.

 

IMO, if SEGA hopes to make some bucks out of this, they better stick to the game continuity by monitoring how the movie is made and how it's carried out. Since if they just spit out a sell-out hairball the word will go around very quickly about how it's bad, ultimately making it a box office failure and making the Sonic franchise really sink, no?

[MegasonicZX]

Just be thankful I didn't go the "Sonic and Shadow are alien hedgehog brothers from another dimension, they need to put aside their differences after being accidentally sent to Earth...etc etc" route.

What's more frightening is that some franchises like Transformers have changed their current backstory or characters and made them tie in with the movies (like Bumblebee's design and lack of voice) and newer cartoons continuity (using the newer video game backstory and Prime's series of events) going forward. If Sega decided to do this should a prospective movie be popular or the new cartoon series took off....that's what scares me a little.

To be fair, I actually like Prime a whole lot because of what it took off of the movie (probably my favorite animated series yet) and it had a nice story for what it was, an even better story than most of the transformers continuities by far if I have to be honest so if the movie does have a good story to it I wouldn't mind if its adapted into the games in some way.

[Kuzu]

Going back to the "aimed at kids" argument, I ultimately don't care what demographic Sonic appeals to, but my problem lies when their games try to bend backwards for a demographic. 

 

Back in Sonic Adventure, I never got the feeling that it was catered to kids, but something that they could enjoy playing. It was just a fun little platformer starring colorful anthropomorphic animals, but it wasn't afraid to tackle less than family-unfriendly themes such as: Death, revenge, and other things. No matter what you feel are "for kids" or not, those are decidedly unchildlike aspects not normally found in a media aimed at young children.

 

The current games downplay all of this in favor of just playing everything straight to the letter;no hidden themes, no hidden motives, characterization really isn't all that complex. Its basically "Good Guys vs. Bad Guys, Good Guys Win, The End"  

 

 

TL;DR version: The Adventure Series are akin to Spectacular Spider Man, kids show with hidden adult themes and implications.

 

The current games are akin to Ultimate Spider Man, little to no hidden themes to speak of and over-reliance on humor to appeal to specific demographic.

[Irish David]

Like many of my favourite shows, sometimes I want to see them move to the Big Screen but also have the fear they could be really bad, e.g. Yogi Bear, Top Cat and The Smurfs, so again I am in 2 minds. I think a film would be a great idea but it could be awful. I shall see how Sonic Boom turns out before passing judgement on it

[Tara]

Going back to the "aimed at kids" argument, I ultimately don't care what demographic Sonic appeals to, but my problem lies when their games try to bend backwards for a demographic. 

 

Back in Sonic Adventure, I never got the feeling that it was catered to kids, but something that they could enjoy playing. It was just a fun little platformer starring colorful anthropomorphic animals, but it wasn't afraid to tackle less than family-unfriendly themes such as: Death, revenge, and other things. No matter what you feel are "for kids" or not, those are decidedly unchildlike aspects not normally found in a media aimed at young children.

 

The current games downplay all of this in favor of just playing everything straight to the letter;no hidden themes, no hidden motives, characterization really isn't all that complex. Its basically "Good Guys vs. Bad Guys, Good Guys Win, The End"  

 

 

TL;DR version: The Adventure Series are akin to Spectacular Spider Man, kids show with hidden adult themes and implications.

 

The current games are akin to Ultimate Spider Man, little to no hidden themes to speak of and over-reliance on humor to appeal to specific demographic.

I can see your point, but while the themes themselves were far from "child-friendly," the way they handled never struck me as adult or mature in any way.  The themes themselves are hardly explored in depth and quickly reverts to typical "hero saves day" affair.  I'm not saying there weren't some complexity to the game's overlying message or anything, but it's no different than, say, a movie about choosing your own path, a revelation which came at the expense of others, is the same movie that had cute, cuddly super-powered animals using their own tears to bring a character back to life. Yeah, the theme is complex and more than most kids movies dare to delve into, but the way it's handled isn't any more adult than if they hadn't.

[Kuzu]

I can see your point, but while the themes themselves were far from "child-friendly," the way they handled never struck me as adult or mature in any way.  The themes themselves are hardly explored in depth and quickly reverts to typical "hero saves day" affair.  I'm not saying there weren't some complexity to the game's overlying message or anything, but it's no different than, say, a movie about choosing your own path, a revelation which came at the expense of others, is the same movie that had cute, cuddly super-powered animals using their own tears to bring a character back to life. Yeah, the theme is complex and more than most kids movies dare to delve into, but the way it's handled isn't any more adult than if they hadn't.

 

But that's not my point; you're focusing on whether its "adult" or "childish" when my main argument that regardless of target demographics, the games did explore more mature themes than your average family friendly series would suggest and that the current game are actively downplaying any of these aspects to make for a much simpler experience. How "complex" it was or wasn't isn't essential to my argument, just the fact that it was there counts.

[Tara]

But that's not my point; you're focusing on whether its "adult" or "childish" when my main argument that regardless of target demographics, the games did explore more mature themes than your average family friendly series would suggest and that the current game are actively downplaying any of these aspects to make for a much simpler experience. How "complex" it was or wasn't isn't essential to my argument, just the fact that it was there counts.

Fair enough.  I guess I was still on the other argument. ^^;

 

My point is still, "Yeah, they were there but... eh, okay."

[Kuzu]

Nobody is saying that having those elements made those games really complex, but nowadays the series is actively trying to force itself to be more simple and "Child-friendly" and some people want more out of the series than just "The Wacky Adventures of Sonic & Tails"....or if its going to be just that, the least they could do is actually write better for it.

[Nepenthe]

Granted, I'm curious: what does someone usually mean in this conversation when we say that something was or wasn't explored in a complex way? I only ask because you can explore themes in a multitude of ways that don't necessarily mean they have to be littered with the mountains of symbolism present in an episode of Ergo Proxy. Disney, Pixar, and DreamWorks films explore their themes, and they do so using different techniques of various levels of subtlety (and even as academically simple as they are, many of these films nonetheless get a pass as being "brilliant"): using a character to be the walking embodiment of the morals, using developing interactions between pairs of characters, outright stating the theme sometimes, recurring events and effects; it just depends. Sonic games have explored their themes to various degrees using a few of these techniques, so I'm wondering what we really mean here. What constitutes "complex" exploration?

[Kuzu]

For me, if something has more to it than meets the eye, then that's enough for me to consider it complex because it requires critical thinking to identify. I dunno tho, in most cases things really may not be that complex and I'm accused of reading too much into things. Its in the eyes of the beholder I suppose, some people take things at face value in "What you see is what you get" type of way, while others like digging further to see what else they can find. For all I know, there's probably someone out there who sees Toy Story as just a movie about toys doing stuff.

 

I guess you could say its only "complex exploration" if that was the creator's intention, otherwise its almost pure fanon.

[Tara]

Nobody is saying that having those elements made those games really complex, but nowadays the series is actively trying to force itself to be more simple and "Child-friendly" and some people want more out of the series than just "The Wacky Adventures of Sonic & Tails"....or if its going to be just that, the least they could do is actually write better for it.

The previous arguments were that these elements were dropped to make the games more strictly kid-friendly or that the games now are only meant to appeal to young kids.  That's the argument I was stuck on when I made my initial reply to you, but since you clarified that's not what you meant, I redacted.  I can understand that people want more from the series.  I wouldn't mind some more depth to the series, myself.  I don't feel it necessary, but I don't honestly mind it.

 

Granted, I'm curious: what does someone usually mean in this conversation when we say that something was or wasn't explored in a complex way? I only ask because you can explore themes in a multitude of ways that don't necessarily mean they have to be littered with the mountains of symbolism present in an episode of Ergo Proxy. Disney, Pixar, and DreamWorks films explore their themes, and they do so using different techniques of various levels of subtlety (and even as academically simple as they are, many of these films nonetheless get a pass as being "brilliant"): using a character to be the walking embodiment of the morals, using developing interactions between pairs of characters, outright stating the theme sometimes, recurring events and effects; it just depends. Sonic games have explored their themes to various degrees using a few of these techniques, so I'm wondering what we really mean here. What constitutes "complex" exploration?

To me, complexity stems from there being deep-seeded motivations as opposed to a character simply being an entity which represents a singular idea.  (In the way that Eggman represents evil without any clear motivation, while Gerald is slightly more complex [slightly] because his evil plan stems from his lust for revenge after the death of his granddaughter) Why did Tikal's father want the Chaos Emeralds?  Because he wanted power.  Why did he want power?  Because people are greedy fucks is the answer they're looking for, but the game sort of makes it seem like he's just a bad person because he's bad and that's it.

 

Toy Story 3 had complexity in its themes of purpose and acceptance of fate, and we know why these issues are a big deal.  We're led to believe through all three movies that toys were built specifically so children can play with them.  The thought that they'd be tossed aside or donated to children who won't fully appreciate them has a genuine impact because we know what they're feeling and why they're feeling it on a micro level.  We understand why this is a big deal beyond what is evident.  We see the bond the toys share with their beloved owners and we get very deep into their hearts and emotions.

 

On the other hand, in Sonic Colors, we see the themes of "freedom" and "slavery," but it's not explored to greater extents.  We're just supposed to know based on exposition and plot setup that freedom is good and slavery is bad.  We know that the Wisps don't want to be Eggman's tools, but we have little but our own conscious saying "yeah, that would kinda suck" to tell us how bad it is.  We have nothing personal to attach ourselves to the characters aside from our own perception of humanity.  To me, that's not very complex, nor very deep.

 

But that's just my interpretation on the matter.

[Nepenthe]

I feel you're working off of two different points of reference there by talking about a single secondary character in SA1 versus the entire themes of Toy Story 3-- and not only TS3 but the entire franchise. Now, while I agree that TS3's themes are serviced by the interactions of the characters between one another, in the broadest sense I see little difference between the film and SA1 in this context because there exists exploration of themes through character in that game too. Pachacamac wants power to further advance his people (he pretty much admits as such in one of the cut scenes). Woody wants to go home because he loves Andy and wants to be with him. These are both simplistic motivations to two characters, but what makes them important is is that their motivations serve greater elements.

 

In SA1's case, the major theme is that selfish desires only go on to hurt the people around you, regardless of whether or not they are backed by good intentions or empathetic reasons. Pachamacac wanted to advance his people so he craved power. This desire made him storm the shrine for the Master Emerald, killing nearby Chao and in turn setting Chaos off. Even though he was sealed and was rightfully raged by the slaughter of his friends, in the end Sonic himself sought first and foremost to end his emotional pain because he felt forgiveness would be better not just for the world, but for Chaos' being too. He didn't want him to be trapped forever in the shrine, angry, because these kinds of selfish emotions are still destructive.

 

Even though it wasn't handled with the tact of TS3, I still think that's decent exploration on part of SA1, and I feel Pachamacac is important himself because he is the example of what not to do, and thus adds context to Chaos' plight and Sonic's stance at the end. I agree wholeheartedly with you about Colors though, because as you said there's little context given to the emotions and interactions of the characters to really build anything complex off of it.

[Tara]

I feel you're working off of two different points of reference there by talking about a single secondary character in SA1 versus the entire themes of Toy Story 3-- and not only TS3 but the entire franchise.

But that character was the driving point for those themes.  It was his actions that set off Chaos and his actions are the primary catalyst for the morals to be told.  In addition, there are several largely different themes explored in each characters' story, so I kind of had to choose the one that I felt was the most dominant.

 

Also, the reason I used the entire Toy Story series instead of only the one movie was because Sonic hasn't had the luxury of a consistent buildup between games, whereas Toy Story has.  Knowing the characters based on your past experiences with them contributes to the depth and complexity. and all three Toy Stories use this beautifully to their advantage.

 

 

 

 Now, while I agree that TS3's themes are serviced by the interactions of the characters between one another, in the broadest sense I see little difference between the film and SA1 in this context because there exists exploration of themes through character in that game too. Pachacamac wants power to further advance his people (he pretty much admits as such in one of the cut scenes). Woody wants to go home because he loves Andy and wants to be with him. These are both simplistic motivations to two characters, but what makes them important is is that their motivations serve greater elements.

 

In SA1's case, the major theme is that selfish desires only go on to hurt the people around you, regardless of whether or not they are backed by good intentions or empathetic reasons. Pachamacac wanted to advance his people so he craved power. This desire made him storm the shrine for the Master Emerald, killing nearby Chao and in turn setting Chaos off. Even though he was sealed and was rightfully raged by the slaughter of his friends, in the end Sonic himself sought first and foremost to end his emotional pain because he felt forgiveness would be better not just for the world, but for Chaos' being too. He didn't want him to be trapped forever in the shrine, angry, because these kinds of selfish emotions are still destructive.

 

Even though it wasn't handled with the tact of TS3, I still think that's decent exploration on part of SA1, and I feel Pachamacac is important himself because he is the example of what not to do, and thus adds context to Chaos' plight and Sonic's stance at the end. I agree wholeheartedly with you about Colors though, because as you said there's little context given to the emotions and interactions of the characters to really build anything complex off of it.

 

 

My point wasn't that Pachamacac wasn't a necessary character or that he was completely flat.  I just feel that the way they explored it didn't highlight those depths well enough.  We don't quite see why the advancement of his people would be important beyond the obvious motivations of greed and imperialism.  We just know it's something they really want.  Woody wants to be with Andy because he loves him and doesn't want anything to change, but we see through expositions that Woody isn't just someone he loves, but his very purpose for existing.  

 

Of course, I'm not saying this has to be spelled out and shoved in your face.  Subtly is an incredibly important story telling tool, but I felt that some of the themes in SA1 are only apparent post-analysis. (Or alternatively, I'm just slow)  I'll concede that Pachamacac may have been a bad example, though.

 

Don't get me wrong, though, I think for what Sega had to work with, they pulled it off surprisingly well.  Just not by comparison to the Dreamworks and Pixar films that are renowned for these very elements.

[Azure P]

Reading through the posts. One thing stuck out.

 

SatAM was bad? Did I miss the memo of the hate train?

 

 

Pretty much sums up my feelings on it.

 

If this movie was any thing like it at all. I would be more than happy.

[Space☆Tomoki]

Reading through the posts. One thing stuck out.

 

SatAM was bad? Did I miss the memo of the hate train?

 

 

Pretty much sums up my feelings on it.

 

If this movie was any thing like it at all. I would be more than happy.

I dislike SatAM because it doesn't follow the games at all, the characters are annoying, Tails doesn't do anything (and his role is stolen by Rotor and Sally). None of the original characters fit with the SEGA Sonic design scheme, either. They're much more dull and generic looking. The world looks nothing like what's seen in the games. Robotnik looks nothing like his video game counterpart, etc.

 

If we're getting a Sonic movie, I want it to be a representation of the games (aka the source material), not some obscure, unfaithful, overrated cartoon that's been dead for about 20 years now.

[Azure P]

I dislike SatAM because it doesn't follow the games at all, the characters are annoying, Tails doesn't do anything (and his role is stolen by Rotor and Sally). None of the original characters fit with the SEGA Sonic design scheme, either. They're much more dull and generic looking. The world looks nothing like what's seen in the games. Robotnik looks nothing like his video game counterpart, etc.

 

If we're getting a Sonic movie, I want it to be a representation of the games (aka the source material), not some obscure, unfaithful, overrated cartoon that's been dead for about 20 years now.

 

True it doesn't follow the video games at all. But that doesn't make it bad.

 

You're entitled to dislike SatAM as your opinion. But it was a great show in its own merits.

 

Tails - Character development. Was said his role would increase later on if the show wasn't cancelled. Makes sense.

 

SatAM Robotnik is an award winning villain. Much preferred to the joke Eggman we have in the video games.

 

 

But no need to be worried. Though it would be nice to revisit the SatAM universe. The archive comics pretty much cover the events after SatAM. So it's unlikely that it would happen. Your Sonic purist vision is in safe hands with Sega.

 

/smirk

[Kuzu]

Make sure not to get nosebleed on that high horse of yours.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Space☆Tomoki]

True it doesn't follow the video games at all. But that doesn't make it bad.

 

You're entitled to dislike SatAM as your opinion. But it was a great show in its own merits.

 

Tails - Character development. Was said his role would increase later on if the show wasn't cancelled. Makes sense.

 

SatAM Robotnik is an award winning villain. Much preferred to the joke Eggman we have in the video games.

 

 

But no need to be worried. Though it would be nice to revisit the SatAM universe. The archive comics pretty much cover the events after SatAM. So it's unlikely that it would happen. Your Sonic purist vision is in safe hands with Sega.

 

/smirk

Again, that's a matter of opinion. I'm not a fan of the Archie universe, either. It's just too different from what I grew up with, that's all. Also, I seriously doubt my "purist vision" is in safe hands with Sega, because it's Sega, a company that cares little for consistency between the games and its adaptations in other forms of media. I mean, look at the upcoming Sonic Boom, where they allowed the characters to be significantly redesigned to an extent. I'm also not particularly fond of the stories in Colors, Generations, and Lost World, due to being bare bones, everyone having almost entirely different characterization from what's been established before, etc. I can't help but worry for the future of this series.

[Azure P]

I seriously doubt my "purist vision" is in safe hands with Sega

 

Hence the /smirk

 

Let's be honest. You probably have buffles the echidna and a comical just for lawls plot to look forward to in the movie.