Jump to content
Badnik Mechanic

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

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, DreamSaturn said:

Sonic fans do, and I've seen nothing but ire against it. It's not JUST on Facebook or Twitter. I also find it hard to believe that "most people don't know it exists" when we have big sites like comicbook.com reporting on it. 

Sonic fans will make up 00.1% of the box-office gross for this movie compared to the general audience. Even if they hate what they're hearing - that does not mean everyone else is going to feel the same way. Especially people outside of this fanbase.

 

Come on, dude. Most people don't go to Comic Book Movie for news on these types of things.  Most of the GA is not that invested into this kind stuff, us nerds (comic book fans included) are a small minority. These adaptions are not being made specifically for us - they are made for a wider audience.

Quote

And Sonic is a cartoony, animated character in a cartoonish world populated by cartoon characters, with Eggman being the only human in that world (apparently if Forces is a thing), much like how Star Lord is the only human in GotG but thanks to the MCU that's now one of Marvel's more popular properties. Aliens and all, hardly any humans in sight. 

With mostly aliens surrounding them, yes. And I've given you the example of GotG.

Even if we used the GOTG analogy - Tom would still be a major character because Peter Quill is the only human being and he's the POV for the audience. Why is he the main character? Because the audience (human beings) can relate to him better than all of the aliens. His story (a kid taken from Earth by aliens) is something people can empathize and relate to people because we'd feel the same way. Why do you think Drax or Rocket aren't the POV? Why haven't we been shown Drax's family or Rocket being turned into a mutant? Because theese two characters are too alien for the audience and for the story they're telling.

 

Now, I'm not saying Tom will be the main character but he's going to be a big part of the movie and everyone knew this was going to happen for reasons already stated. It's a necessary evil for a live action Sonic movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, DreamSaturn said:

How about Guardians of the Galaxy, then? Star Lord is the only human in sight in those movies.

Surrounded by three technicolor humans plus two CGI creatures.

Share this post


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

Because the Lion King is traditionally animated movie, it is not live action nor is It a PG-13 action adventure in vein of GOTG and Fast and Furious.

Which, I hope you understand, is one of the fundamental reasons why people are opposing this movie; the very medium it is being executed in is being rejected.  The flaw was there from the very start.  People aren't objecting to humans while embracing live-action; the two are inextricably bound up in this project.  Hence why so many people correctly anticipated and consequently abandoned this movie from the beginning.

1 minute ago, PeterPancake said:

Sonic fans will make up 00.1% of the box-office gross for this movie compared to the general audience. Even if they hate what they're hearing - that does not mean everyone else is going to feel the same way. Especially people outside of this fanbase.

[...]

Come on, dude. Most people don't go to Comic Book Movie for news on these types of things.  Most of the GA is not that invested into this kind stuff, us nerds (comic book fans included) are a small minority. These adaptions are not being made specifically for us - they are made for a wider audience.

And this is the other reason why people reject this movie and others along its lines.  If you change the product completely, it is not "Sonic," it is just something that bears the same name for no purpose except money.  This is a movie which has no reason to exist except to make money; nobody involved with it has any interest or confidence in the actual franchise, and hence they are inventing a wholly different franchise.  Detractors on this forum, by contrast, have entirely different standards; they aren't evaluating the quality of this movie purely according to whether or not it makes money.  They're interested in a movie about the Sonic they know, and won't be drawn to a movie which happens to be called Sonic but bears no resemblance, no matter how much money it makes.  You understand this, just as the film's detractors already understand exactly why this film is the way it is; and as such I fail to understand the purpose of this discussion.

Share this post


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

Sonic fans will make up 00.1% of the box-office gross for this movie compared to the general audience.

Why do you think people will be so interested in a live-action Sonic the Hedgehog movie though?

Share this post


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

Sonic fans will make up 00.1% of the box-office gross for this movie compared to the general audience. Even if they hate what they're hearing - that does not mean everyone else is going to feel the same way. Especially people outside of this fanbase.

I stepped out of this conversation a while ago because I felt that my bias was hindering any form of reasonable discussion, but this number kind of bothers me. If you recall, a few pages back I specifically mention the numbers of 100 million total downloads and 14 million daily players involving Sonic Dash. Now, as someone who does not play, or even downloaded Sonic Dash I can use myself to say that the number of Sonic fans are larger than the 100 million listed by some degree. To be more realistic though, let's go with 14 million fans as a rough number. If we take your 0.1% number than the general audience equals 14 billion people, which is double of the Earth's population. That's a pretty bold claim even as an exaggeration.

I get what you're trying to say though, which is just like BOOM! the movie is not being aimed at the established fanbase. The problem is though, as you say, gamers and video games (despite being as large of a business as Hollywood) are part of a niche. Sonic fans are an even smaller part of this niche and Sonic himself no longer has his global recognition from the '90s. To make matters worse, outside of Sonic's fanbase he is barely above an inside joke and only his iconic status from the '90's has kept him around at all.

So that brings us to the question then of who is your target audience for a PG-13 rated Sonic movie. Well, the only game in the franchise with a comparable rating was Shadow and you know how well that was received. BOOM! was aimed at a new audience and we see how that's doing as well. So how about the age range of 13 year olds and their parents who will be taking them to see this movie. Well, their parents will be old enough to remember who Sonic was in the late nineties and early 2000s, and the kids themselves are at the age that 06 would have been their first new game, or Unleashed and the story book games with Colors being a likely choice as well. then you have the state of the games and comics today with almost no humans or realism present which will create a brand disconnect with the movie and the main form of the brand making it difficult to sell games from the existing catalog which SEGA is always glad to re-release. Of course since this movie isn't aimed at existing fans who is it trying to get with a PG-13 rated anthropomorphic animal movie? Are they honestly thinking they can take the GotG crowd with Tom the cop in rural no man's land? I just don't see it. I just can't see the general audience being interested in a PG-13 anthropomorphic animal series. And considering this is the age of the internet you can't tell me that anyone who looks up Sonic after the marketing begins won't see this

latest?cb=20171108084934

the very first image on Google image search (went there since regular search gave me the drive thru). That alone is a problem since any further refining searches brings this

latest?cb=20160923195943

up in the first images and on the Google sidebar. Then you're also going to have some parents who will do further research to see if this a movie to bring their kids and there is no way that type of research won't reveal the uglier parts of the fanbase in even the tiniest of examples and that could kill the movie alone right there. 

So, I have to ask; what exactly is Paramount banking on here. You don't want the existing fans but it is totally impossible to separate a near three decade old franchise from its history and fans, and anyone who even attempts to look up the movie when it starts being marketed will be exposed to that in some capacity. Even the marketing itself is going to have to say based on the hit game and comic series by SEGA which will itself generate curiosity which leads to parts of the general audience doing their own research. That research will in turn be shared on social media and that will give birth to countless comparisons and questions about what is going on. I know i'm biased against the movie, but even then I can't see how this movie is a good idea in any capacity except maybe brand exposure. The problem I see there though is that this is not necessarily good exposure, and despite the old Hollywood slogan of bad publicity is still publicity I just see this endeavor hurting the brand more than anything.

Sorry for my pessimism, I just can't see this movie as turning out good for Paramount or SEGA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Operationgamer17 said:

People are saying this is PG-13 when A) the original writer said they were AIMING for that, and B) the same writer said the movie was made more kid-friendly when Tim Miller got on board, meaning it’s not PG-13 anymore.

Something can be both kid friendly and PG13 at the same time. It’s a broad rating these days. Something as cheerful as Ant-Man shares its rating with the nihilistic Suicide Squad. Maybe this was originally as gritty as the Dark Knight Saga before being toned down?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Operationgamer17 said:

People are saying this is PG-13 when A) the original writer said they were AIMING for that, and B) the same writer said the movie was made more kid-friendly when Tim Miller got on board, meaning it’s not PG-13 anymore.

you gotta source fo the more kid friendly thing the original writer said it became more action focused when tim miller joined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Operationgamer17 said:

People are saying this is PG-13 when A) the original writer said they were AIMING for that, and B) the same writer said the movie was made more kid-friendly when Tim Miller got on board, meaning it’s not PG-13 anymore.

A) The pitch remains the same. The core story Van wrote and Sony drafted is still the same. He never said that - he said that the script was being retooled to be more action-focused so what we have now may be more intense than what Van wrote. ALL of the MCU movies are considered "Family friendly" maybe with the exception of Infinity War, Civil War and Winter Soldier. Fast and Furious is considered "Family Friendly" as was the Bay TMNT movies. The Sonic movie will fit somewhere in line with these films. I'm expecting the tone of this movie to be closer to Spider-Man: Homecoming or Avengers.

30 minutes ago, Miragnarok said:

Something can be both kid friendly and PG13 at the same time. It’s a broad rating these days. Something as cheerful as Ant-Man shares its rating with the nihilistic Suicide Squad. Maybe this was originally as gritty as the Dark Knight Saga before being toned down?

Nah, Van confirmed that the dark and gritty rumors were a lie. The movie was never going to be that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Razule said:

If it's PG-13 I'd guess that what would bump it up to that is some crude jokes and maybe one "damn".

Eggman might be a reason too. I can see his robots actually killing people and turning others into badniks. I can see the movie playing Eggman very seriously - closer to how he was in Sonic Adventure 1 and 2. Also the action may get pretty intense too and there may be some blood in the movie.

 

With Tim Miller and both of the current writers' filmography - there will definitely be some crude jokes. Maybe even by Sonic himself 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, A sonic fan said:

you gotta source fo the more kid friendly thing the original writer said it became more action focused when tim miller joined.

That's what I heard, too. I read that the original script was more comedy-focused, and then when Miller joined and it was moved to Paramount, the script was re-written to be more action-focused. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Spooks said:

That's what I heard, too. I read that the original script was more comedy-focused, and then when Miller joined and it was moved to Paramount, the script was re-written to be more action-focused. 

It's also worth noting that Van (Since I when back to his old tweets and he did indeed say it was rewritten to be more action-focused, never said "Kid friendly" What @Operationgamer17 is probably referring to is that old Hollywood Reporter article from 2016 that said the movie would be family friendly) said that the movie version of Sonic won't be the same as classic Sonic, modern Sonic, Boom Sonic or Archie Sonic - He'll be his own thing. So it will be interesting to see how movie Sonic differs from past versions. 

 

We know he's going to be very juvenile, so he'll probably be very immature and mischievous. I could see him having a beautiful arc where he realizes that he can be something more than a a carefree asshole; he can help people, BE a hero and he can stop Eggman & save the world.  I'm starting to love the sound of where Sonic's mindset is when we meet him because it has so much potential for a fleshed out character arc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you honestly think Sonic fans were only making up 00.1%, there wouldn't be a Sonic movie period. The entire reason movie studios grab up popular properties in both gaming and cinema is because of the fact they already have pre-established fan-bases. It's seen as a guarantee of having some kind of return because it's easier to use a pre-existing fanbase rather than trying to completely make a new one from scratch from another property.  That's also why several of these movies end up getting sequels. People get suckered in the first time around with their nostalgia and memories of a specific property as well as children who recognize the characters. 

That's the reason why live-action movies on pre-existing properties are so hated with few exceptions, because almost always, they never put any kind of effort into making it an enjoyable film in of itself. It panders and talks down to the audience while drawing out tired and cliched characters and plots without any real effort because "Well, there's a ton of people with nostalgia for this property and they'll see it to reexperience their childhood!".

That's also why movie tie-ins and licensed games tend to be godawful - the majority of the time, it's being made by companies who believe having that pre-established fanbase is more than enough and a get out of jail free card from having to commit to doing any real effort. That's also why tie-in games to the likes of Disney used to be numerous a few years back, because they could shove out a quick game, and then have the pre-established fanbases of Pixar and their properties go nuts for the game later, like with Finding Nemo's tie-in. 

We can sit and debate all we want on the arcs/stories/whatever else and how it appeals to the fanbase and new viewers of the movie but the bare minimum fact is that the fanbase will be a major factor in the movie. They wouldn't be making a movie on Sonic if that wasn't the case. Sonic has major name recognition and one of the biggest fanbases in gaming, especially with the added boom of Mania pushing it with many people rediscovering what made them love the series in the first place. Trying to pretend that "Sonic fans won't matter and will make up a tiny tiny portion of the viewers" is an absolutely incorrect notion proven by the very fact that the movie exists in the first place. If the fanbase didn't matter whatsoever, then they would've just focused on an original movie that fits their story concept better. The literal reason a Sonic movie would exist is because of the safety net of having a massive pre-established fanbase instead of trying to desperately create a new one from scratch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ryannumber1gamer Replace "Established fanbase" with "Brand recognition" and you have a point. This isn't about having an established fanbase, that's just a bonus to the main dish. This is about adapting and choosing a property that already has built-in brand recognition, marketability and iconographywithin the public consciousness and pop culture.

 

Sonic is an icon. He's iconic. Everybody knows him from ages 3 to 65. When they see the trailer for the movie and the filmmakers make it look appealing - they'll want to see it because 1) It looks like an awesome action film with something we've never really seen before (a blue, humanoid hedgehog spin dashing down the highway at insane speed) and 2) brand recognizability. Part of the appeal is that it's SONIC THE HEDGEHOG - Everybody is going to know who he is. Some are going to remember him from their childhood and others (the younger fans) will know him from the games and the Sonic Boom cartoon. 3) People who heard of Sonic but never really Payed attention. Their interest is going to be peaked by the trailer. These two are going to be the main demographics for the key to this movie's success. "00.1%" Is admittedly an exaggeration but the truth is - the hardcore fanbase that are going to be  the main ones whining and hating on the movie will only make about around 8% of the box-office AT BEST. Hardcore fanbase of these types of properties ALWAYS hate these blockbuster adaptations whether it's the Spider-Man fanbase who hated first TASM movie with Garfield, the TMNT fanbase who hated the first Bay film or the Transformers fanbase who has been hating the movies since the first trailer in 2006. But you know what they all have in common, Sonic included? They were all box-office smashes regardless of the fan backlash. Spider-Man made over 700m, TMNT made over 400m, Transformers made over 600 etc the fanbase complaining and trashing the movie is not going to matter. In fact - they will only bring more publicity and attention to it. Sonic fans hating the movie and sharing their criticisms across social media will only give the movie more chance of being a success because it will peak the interest of many people who wouldn't have otherwise cared - wanting to see what all the fuss is about. 

The main goal of this movie is to turn Sonic into a multi-media icon and as stated by the president of Sega himself, bring in NEW fans.

And tie-ins games and Merch are not made specially for hardcore fans either. They are made to drum up hype for the movie and expose as many kids and teens to it as possible. A kid who sees the movie may want a Sonic figure or shoes based on his movie design and a Pizza Hut or UPS/FED EX/USPS ad will get more people aware of the movie's existence. It's called marketing. It's essential to every movie's success. Angry fans don't change that; they never have and they never will. If the movie is a hit with general movie going populace - it'll make money.

Share this post


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

It's also worth noting that Van (Since I when back to his old tweets and he did indeed say it was rewritten to be more action-focused, never said "Kid friendly" What @Operationgamer17 is probably referring to is that old Hollywood Reporter article from 2016 that said the movie would be family friendly) said that the movie version of Sonic won't be the same as classic Sonic, modern Sonic, Boom Sonic or Archie Sonic - He'll be his own thing. So it will be interesting to see how movie Sonic differs from past versions. 

 

We know he's going to be very juvenile, so he'll probably be very immature and mischievous. I could see him having a beautiful arc where he realizes that he can be something more than a a carefree asshole; he can help people, BE a hero and he can stop Eggman & save the world.  I'm starting to love the sound of where Sonic's mindset is when we meet him because it has so much potential for a fleshed out character arc.

Exactly. People need to remember that the Sonic we're gonna see in this movie may not completely match up with the Sonic in the games. He needs to be flawed enough to the point where he can become a hero, like how we see him in the games. 

Share this post


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

Exactly. People need to remember that the Sonic we're gonna see in this movie may not completely match up with the Sonic in the games. He needs to be flawed enough to the point where he can become a hero, like how we see him in the games. 

Precisely. And that's how all great heroes come to be. It's the classic superhero origin story and this one sounds very unique 

Share this post


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

Precisely. And that's how all great heroes come to be. It's the classic superhero origin story and this one sounds very unique 

See, the thing is that movies have too many origin stories. It's become too tiring to see. Heck that's one of the reasons why the "hardcore" Spidey fans didn't like TASM, because it was another origin story.

why do i keep getting involved with this topic, i can't help myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DreamSaturn said:

If the general reaction I've seen from fans is anything to go by, then, no, they don't have our support. Most of what I've seen among my friend group and among people in general, mostly everyone thinks it's gonna suck.

It's not even like you need human characters when animal/anthro characters to tell an engaging story, either. Disney, for instance, has The Lion King and that doesn't have any humans at all. To go off on a bit of a tangent, isn't this just part of a larger Hollywood issue? That they're not willing to take any risks? Why are we assuming that people NEED humans to connect and relate too, as opposed to just well written characters? Star Wars doesn't take place in our world and that's still one of the most popular films of all time.

Speaking of Disney examples, Zootopia, Robin Hood and A Goofy Movie. Heck, basically most movies starring Disney's icon Mickey and his friends have a cast consisting of anthros/animals.

Share this post


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

Exactly. People need to remember that the Sonic we're gonna see in this movie may not completely match up with the Sonic in the games. He needs to be flawed enough to the point where he can become a hero, like how we see him in the games. 

Maybe sonic the character doesn't really need that backstory.

Maybe you could have presented how he handles a situation and that would have solved the problem of this film, in a scene in a much better film

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

Maybe sonic the character doesn't really need that backstory.

Maybe you could have presented how he handles a situation and that would have solved the problem of this film, in a scene in a much better film

But then what's the point? We need to see a character that is flawed, has the potential to grow, interacts with characters in a way that can create conflict, solve it, etc. A character that's heroic and refined from the start doesn't sound like a character I'd be very invested in for a movie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Spooks said:

But then what's the point? We need to see a character that is flawed, has the potential to grow, interacts with characters in a way that can create conflict, solve it, etc. A character that's heroic and refined from the start doesn't sound like a character I'd be very invested in for a movie. 

Because being an established hero in some regard does not mean you can't grow and learn. Did you stop growing and learned when you matured a bit, no? Not every character needs that backstory arc, sometimes that growth and learning can happen in the middle of conflect. There are plenty of stories that where the character is defined, and that growth is learning more about themselves. And learning to deal with other people, and that changes them. 

 

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.