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

[G.U.N. Commander Gogol]

27 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

Sonic isn't meant to be taken seriously like ET, though.

I'd argue that. You say this like ET is some Tarkovsky-tier movie, while in fact it is a just very decent family film - just with a story of more complexity than that of some dumbshit sitcom like Sonic Boom or Shrek, so yeah in comparison with THAT i believe it's really "serious". Product for kids/family =/= dumb and superficial. I'm not on board with Peter about all that "realistic approach" stuff in terms of visuals, but I do agree with him that complex and relatively mature story can do wonders to the character which for a very long time perceived like a joke and meme material - weren't it YOU guys who complained about "primitive cliched predictable story" when it was about Sonic Forces? Weren't it all of you who complained about immature and silly Sonic with his childish cringy lines, huh?

[Tarnish]

37 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

Do you think people would have taken ET seriously if he looked like a cartoon and not a living, breathing creature?

You're implying that the artstyle always defines the mood/tone the movie/cartoon will/could/should have.
.
.
.
Have you ever seen Happy Tree Friends?

Do you really think just because the artstyle is cartoony, you can't tell a serious, emotional, or outright gruesome story? That's kind of a very shallow thinking if you ask me.

[Osmium]

14 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

Sonic In this movie was compared to ET by the filmmakers. It's about a creature who is feeling lost and alone, needing somebody to lean on in his time of crisis. So yes he is like ET. Or, at least he is now. So think about how a movie like "ET" would have been recieved if the creature looked like this:

 

instead of this:

 

And now apply your conclusion to that hypothesis, to this Sonic movie. 

ET looks like a cartoon in both of them anyway. The film is basically the cartoon design just made into a 3D model. Why would you expect a "real" alien to be a bipedal tetrapod with big human-like eyes, two exterior nostrils, grasping limbs, and a cute tetrapod derived face anyway? Why would ET resemble anything that has lived on Earth? How is that realistic? 

Sonic is like ET in the respect that neither of them are conceivable in reality. 

[PeterPancake]

3 minutes ago, Tarnish said:

You're implying that the artstyle always defines the mood/tone the movie/cartoon will/could/should have.
.
.
.
Have you ever seen Happy Tree Friends?

The comedy/parody of cartoons which is ultra-violent to contrast the cute visuals? Yes, I have seem Happy Tree Friends. In fact, I used to love the show. 

 

So in a cartoon with an art style/world that the that the creatives can design any way they want, you can get away with that because you aren't restricted by the confines of reality. For live action with real humans in a real environment, set in real-life landmarks. It's a very different ballgame. What you can get away with in a completely animated world is not the same for live action film. 

[Ruomarta]

At this point, this argument is getting REALLY old. And I'm pretty sure the mods are thinking this as well. Like seriously @PeterPancake, just accept that no one hear, besides @Myst and @Alexios31, share your thoughts and be done with it. Speaking of @Alexios31, he agrees with you for the most part, but you don't see him constantly telling strangers he barely knows that what he's saying about this movie is fact(as in implying, not actually saying it). You can share your disagreement with others and passion of this movie, that's your right, but don't be continuously shoving your opinions down other people's throats to make them agree with you. It makes you look VERY desperate.

[Razule]

19 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:



Sonic In this movie was compared to ET by the filmmakers. It's about a creature who is feeling lost and alone, needing somebody to lean on in his time of crisis. So yes he is like ET. Or, at least he is now. So think about how a movie like "ET" would have been recieved if the creature looked like this:

Iron Giant is a classic. I think ET would still have been recieved pretty well if it was an animated movie.

[PeterPancake]

1 minute ago, Osmium said:

ET looks like a cartoon in both of them anyway. The film is basically the cartoon design just made into a 3D model. Why would you expect a "real" alien to be a bipedal tetrapod with big human-like eyes, two exterior nostrils, and a cute tetrapod derived face anyway? Why would ET resemble anything that has lived on Earth? How is that realistic? 

Sonic is like ET in the respect that neither of them are conceivable in reality. 

Because ET looks like a living breathing creature that could conceivable, and believably EXIST on screen with real people and not look like something somebody drew on a piece of paper or an animated cartoon somebody rendered in a computer. Suspension of disbelief. ET looking like that makes more sense than him looking like an animated Mickey Mouse-esque cartoon. This isn't about science or biology, this is about making the audience believe in what they are seeing on the big screen. And lazily slapping a cartoon in the cinema in a grounded story would be taken seriously by no one. 

[Diogenes]

2 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

This is what it boils down to, so now we're narrowing in on the core of my argument. This depends on which version of Sonic you're talking about.

No, literally any version of Sonic is not meant to be taken seriously like ET. Not classic, not modern, not SatAM, not AoStH, not X, not Archie, not IDW, not OVA. I'm not saying that you cannot take Sonic seriously in any way, but he operates in a fundamentally different way than ET.

1 minute ago, G.U.N. Commander Gogol said:

I'd argue that. You say this like ET is some Tarkovsky-tier movie,

No I say it like ET was meant to be a creature that could theoretically exist, and Sonic was always meant to be an over-the-top cartoon being.

1 minute ago, G.U.N. Commander Gogol said:

 weren't it YOU guys who complained about "primitive cliched predictable story" when it was about Sonic Forces? Weren't it all of you who complained about immature and silly Sonic with his childish cringy lines, huh?

It's almost as if there's more than two kinds of things, huh.

And personally I prefer the cheesy jokes over the terrible drama anyway.

[Tarnish]

3 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

For live action with real humans in a real environment, set in real-life landmarks. It's a very different ballgame. What you can get away with in a completely animated world is not the same for live action film. 

That's why it was a stupid idea from the get-go to decide on a live action movie. It can't be used as the defense of "we wanted to make a serious Sonic movie", because it's not needed to make a serious Sonic movie.

Being live action is in no way advantage, it's just a huge disadvatage when it comes to Sonic.

[Osmium]

3 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

 And lazily slapping a cartoon in the cinema in a grounded story would be taken seriously by no one. 

Says who? 

[PeterPancake]

2 minutes ago, Tarnish said:

That's why it was a stupid idea from the get-go to decide on a live action movie. It can't be used as the defense of "we wanted to make a serious Sonic movie", because it's not needed to make a serious Sonic movie.

Being live action is in no way advantage, it's just a huge disadvatage when it comes to Sonic.

That's a different argument altogether. All I'm saying is that the game design would not work for the story they are trying to tell. Would it work for an animated works like Zootopia, Wreck It Ralph or Despicable Me? Absolutely. But that's not what we're getting and I'm just trying to explain to you all WHY they didn't go with the game design for this movie and why their choice is justified. 

[Diogenes]

1 minute ago, PeterPancake said:

That's a different argument altogether. All I'm saying is that the game design would not work for the story they are trying to tell. Would it work for an animated works like Zootopia, Wreck It Ralph or Despicable Me? Absolutely. But that's not what we're getting and I'm just trying to explain to you all WHY they didn't go with the game design for this movie and why their choice is justified. 

All you're saying is that two wrongs make a right.

[Shaddy Zaphod]

Whether something can be "taken seriously" is completely subjective. Personally I find it way easier to leverage one's own knowledge of reality into the abstract world of cartoons to get into the mood of a series than to forcibly rip a character from that world and bastardize them to try (and fail, usually) to make them blend with reality. Moreover, I don't take any incarnation of Sonic particularly seriously, least of all the trash we've been given in this awful film. It doesn't look real, it looks bad. I refuse to even acknowledge that thing as Sonic. It looks gross and wrong by any standard, "Sonic" or otherwise. Saying "the game design doesn't work with this story" is a worthless fucking statement because they should have known better than to tell this story, and the design they chose instead is still fucking terrible! Just because you can explain why they made the choices they did doesn't make them the right choices! There are so many better ways they could have made the character look, and they made him look like shit. Constantly vomiting up blind defense and continuing to condescend to those who disagree just because you understand the decision doesn't change that.

[PeterPancake]

1 minute ago, Osmium said:

Says who? 

Says the fact that it's never never been done before. Roger Rabbit is nothing like ET, Earth to Echo, Bumblebee or Super 8. Having a cartoon as the central character in any of these movies would have been detrimental to the tone and story they were trying to establish. 

[Shaddy Zaphod]

Who are you to judge that?

[Tarnish]

16 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

That's a different argument altogether. All I'm saying is that the game design would not work for the story they are trying to tell. Would it work for an animated works like Zootopia, Wreck It Ralph or Despicable Me? Absolutely. But that's not what we're getting and I'm just trying to explain to you all WHY they didn't go with the game design for this movie and why their choice is justified. 

I'm gonna tell you right now that save your breath: you will never convince me this movie is good on any level. There are bad games/movies where the concept is good, but it failed at the execution, then there are games/movies that fail right at the very concept. For me, this movie failed at the very concept. I never, ever wanted to see Sonic set in the real world, because A: I find that boring as our world as a setting is not fit to bring out the most of his abilities/character, we need the wacky settings of his world to really make him shine IMO, and B: we already had the whole "Sonic set in the human world" concept, it was called Sonic X and it got very boring very fast, as the human world really did not contribute ANYTHING to Sonic as a character or as a franchise, it just brought his/its potential down.

[Penny]

No one is going to take this blue, hairy man-rat

any more seriously than this

 

because as I said earlier, both are going to look out of place. Only difference is that one is familiar and beloved, the other looks like a CG abomination

[PeterPancake]

4 minutes ago, Shaddy Zaphod said:

Whether something can be "taken seriously" is completely subjective. Personally I find it way easier to leverage one's own knowledge of reality into the abstract world of cartoons to get into the mood of a series than to forcibly rip a character from that world and bastardize them to try (and fail, usually) to make them blend with reality. Moreover, I don't take any incarnation of Sonic particularly seriously, least of all the trash we've been given in this awful film. It doesn't look real, it looks bad. I refuse to even acknowledge that thing as Sonic. It looks gross and wrong by any standard, "Sonic" or otherwise. Saying "the game design doesn't work with this story" is a worthless fucking statement because they should have known better than to tell this story, and the design they chose instead is still fucking terrible! Just because you can explain why they made the choices they did doesn't make them the right choices! There are so many better ways they could have made the character look, and they made him look like shit. Constantly vomiting up blind defense and continuing to condescend to those who disagree just because you understand the decision doesn't change that.

Maybe, maybe not. We'll see when the movie comes out if it was the right choice or they made a terrible mistake.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

Oh yes, Roger Rabbit, that delightfully innocent and child-friendly film about racism, oppression, depression, regret, and topped off with a psychopathic toon murderer truly is a innocent story with a light-hearted tone.

[Osmium]

1 minute ago, PeterPancake said:

Maybe, maybe not. We'll see when the movie comes out if it was the right choice or they made a terrible mistake.

Oh and here we go with the "let's wait and see" brigade again. Everyone on Earth knows how this ends. 

[PeterPancake]

Just now, Penny said:

No one is going to take this blue, hairy man-rat

any more seriously than this

 

because as I said earlier, both are going to look out of place. One is familiar and beloved, the other looks like a CG abomination

Really? Because if that weren't the case, if Paramount didn't calculate based on data and market analytics what would and would not work for people, they would have used the game design. Nobody is going to take a cartoon seriously in a story about loneliness, despair and friendship. In a story with high-speed action and stakes. They are two completely different mediums that do not mesh. 

 

That's why the Transformers did not look like they came off the set of the Bob the Builder movie when they debuted in their first film.

[Ruomarta]

Get out some popcorn and drinks, ladies and gentleman. Let's see how far this argument goes. Can it reach 300 pages before the movie comes out? Or will @PeterPancake finally accept that most don't share his views and finally end this senseless debate? Only time will tell. So sit back, relax, and enjoy the show.

[Badnik Mechanic]

10 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

Says the fact that it's never never been done before. Roger Rabbit is nothing like ET, Earth to Echo, Bumblebee or Super 8. Having a cartoon as the central character in any of these movies would have been detrimental to the tone and story they were trying to establish. 

Can I just see if I understand this right?

Your entire argument is... "Sonic must look realistic because nobody will take him seriously if he looks like a cartoon in a live action film, my evidence of this is every other film which has had a live action cartoon hybrid."

Even then I'm not sure what you mean by cartoon.

[Diogenes]

Y'know thinking about it, word is that Sonic is supposed to come to Earth from his own world or something, right.

So they could actually leverage him looking "out of place" because he literally is out of place. Maybe not with a design 100% faithful to the games necessarily, but without requiring him to be a hairy little gremlin for the sake of "realism".

Just now, PeterPancake said:

Really? Because if that weren't the case, if Paramount didn't calculate based on data and market analytics what would and would not work for people, they would have used the game design.

Because filmmakers never make mistakes, right? Every movie is, in fact, perfect.

[Osmium]

8 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

Really? Because if that weren't the case, if Paramount didn't calculate based on data and market analytics what would and would not work for people, they would have used the game design. Nobody is going to take a cartoon seriously in a story about loneliness, despair and friendship. In a story with high-speed action and stakes. They are two completely different mediums that do not mesh. 

Have you ever seen an animated movie in your life? I'm legitimately curious now. 

The lengths you will go to defend the Sonic movie. Is it worth it?