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

[Scritch the Cat]

3 minutes ago, Tarnish said:

I'm writing all of these as a total layman who only ever saw that Pokemon movie about Mew and Mewtwo where Ash got turned into stone or something and collected Pokemon pogs as a teenager when that was the biggest craze in school, but I still think my point stands:

Pokemon has always been established as these bizarre creatures + humans living in the same world. And it also has been the focus of the shows and games: the relationship between pokemons and humans. So a Pokemon movie set in a realistic setting with realistic CGI Pokemon where the character designs are pretty damn close to the designs we grew accustomed to is not that far of a stretch.
Whereas with Sonic, Sonic characters + humans has never been a focus of any game, they are getting rid of Sonic's world which every game is set in to substitute it with a realistic setting (something which almost always was a detriment to the games, i.e. Soleanna), and apparently (at least they don't really seem to be denying) they are substituting the relationship between Sonic and his friends with a Sonic + random human relationship.

So in short: a live action Pokemon seems to retain a lot of the elements that made Pokemon Pokemon, while a live action Sonic would need to throw a lot of elements that made Sonic Sonic out the window in order for it to "work".

Good analysis, but did they have to (seemingly) throw out this many elements?!  I get that a live-action hybrid inherently places some necessity on having live human actors and in that regard it's a questionable choice for Sonic because they'll compete with his normal supporting cast for spots/attention, but with what little they have, they should still be able to play up things gamers care about a little more.  

How is it that we know next to nothing about Robotnik, despite him being the one human fans are fine with being in this movie?  Granting that we don't exactly know too much about any character in this movie, why are Sonic's relations to the cops and government more spoken of by publicists?  How is it that despite going for a realistic setting, we still haven't been given any insight into how and why Sonic got there?

It seems like this film has a real dearth of characters from the games, and that sucks, but simple Sonic game plots can actually be done without many characters.  This, however, doesn't even seem like any such simple Sonic game plot.  It seems like a simple movie plot they stuck Sonic into and are still figuring out how to explain him and how to work in Robotnik.

[Red Hot Jack]

Few thoughts on current discussion:

- Hiring fans to make decisions and produce games and movies is obviously not the answer to anything, I hate this mindset that "only fans are capable of understanding Sonic", I mean if they are actually competent and professional, why not though? For example Jeff Jowler the director of this movie has been said to be a long time fan of the franchise, and he is actually a director, so he could be a good choice for the movie.

- I respect everyone's opinions, but wanting the movie to flop and be awful just to prove a point that you guys were right all along based on your gut feeling is... hilarious and a bit ridiculous, sorry, if it sucks, sure you are right though. I want the movie to be a success because I am a big fan of  the franchise and I have big dreaming about this badass and fun movie for quite some time. 

- Now I can finally use Detective Pikachu as an example of good videogame adaptation, if you can make comparisons to shitty videogame movies, I can compare it to Pokemon. It's only fair. Now, I already said that Pokemon has a lot more game content apparently, from what has been shown, it really depends on how much this will look like Sonic, if it's just humans doing human stuff in the human world, why would anyone watch this shit? We already know about Sonic, Robotnik, Green Hill, Rings, Badniks... Not sure about this, Casino Night (I think) and San Francisco as "Sonic content" and we haven't seen anything yet. So... keep your thoughts (obviously) but don't panic yet.

I mean c'mon, DP has had 2 trailers, we can safely say it looks enjoyable and fun, I'll wait for the Sonic trailer at this point.

One last thing: honest question: what would make you guys satisfied about the Sonic movie and what would you like to see in it? Don't say fully animated, we already know it's not that way. I'm curious to know your thoughts.

[Rabid-Coot]

3 hours ago, Jack the Shadow said:

what would make you guys satisfied about the Sonic movie and what would you like to see in it?

Use more of the source material, do something with some of the hundreds of level aesthetics from the last 25 years and use the sizable supporting cast

[Sonic Fan J]

4 hours ago, Jack the Shadow said:

what would make you guys satisfied about the Sonic movie and what would you like to see in it?

Well I've answered this a number of times already but I'll gladly repeat myself again;
For all of my major complaints about this movie there are two major things that would make it work better for me.
1) Make Sonic an adventurer who is always excited by his next adventure. The implications right now that he's moping cause he's not at home with his friends (he's a vagabond adventurer for crying out loud, why would not being at home with his friends make him miserable) and needs a friend who has all of no chance to keep up with him just rubs me the wrong way when the Sonic I know would be excited by being somewhere new.
2) Instead of a buddy cop road trip elevate things to a globe trotting adventure ala Indiana Jones or the Brendan Fraser Mummy movies. A road trip from Montana to California feels too mundane to me for a Sonic story since using the real world as a basis makes it difficult to bring any great sense of adventure and wonder at the ancient civilizations of the world in contrast to Eggman's high-tech robotics. I can't even find anything mystical or awe inspiring locales along the way when google searching for something to inspire me and without carefully detailing my search I just get a bunch of pictures of Joe Montana. The earth is amazing and has some of the most amazing locales and ancient wonders with mystical mysteries, but none of that is apparent on a road trip on the highway from Montana to San Francisco.

Now, all of that said there still hasn't been a trailer yet so I could be wrong since marketing for this movie has already been jacked up by loose lips and a lack of desire by Paramount to do anything about it, but that has painted my opinion heavily. After all, all I have to go on is a silhouette which gets all of Sonic's appealing details wrong for the sake of making this

realistic, and the odd tidbits of plot like going to San Francisco to get Sonic's rings and how it's the story of a small town coming together to help the sheriff save Sonic from the government. It just doesn't sound or look right to me at this point and Paramount not controlling those loose lips has put quite the burden on their marketing department to otherwise impressive me, especially with the design that they have hinted at so far.

[Scritch the Cat]

Conceding that everything in this film is here to stay, and assuming there probably won't be many more pieces, give me good action, a Sonic personality that's funny and cool, and funny dialogue.  Also I'd prefer Eggman's robots look fun akin to most games, instead of generic as they did in Sonic 06.  While those things alone wouldn't turn this into my ideal Sonic film, they'd make it enjoyable enough that I wouldn't dismiss it as a shameless cash-in.

[SaturnWolf]

8 hours ago, Jack the Shadow said:

what would make you guys satisfied about the Sonic movie and what would you like to see in it?

With the way it's going now? The only way to satisfy me is to throw everything out and start over from scratch.

But if that's not an option, well, scrap whatever the fuck it is they're doing with his design right now and do something closer to his actual appearance. Keep the human plots to a minimum.

[Red Hot Jack]

26 minutes ago, DreamSaturn said:

With the way it's going now? The only way to satisfy me is to throw everything out and start over from scratch.

But if that's not an option, well, scrap whatever the fuck it is they're doing with his design right now and do something closer to his actual appearance. Keep the human plots to a minimum.

Eh.

I respect that, but realistically speaking, I'm gonna say it again: the movie was never gonna try to please just the fans, because there aren't that many, it's just not enough to sell a movie, they need to appeal to everyone, hence the design (which is still cartoony apparently) and the buddy cop dynamic. I know fans want something 1:1 with the games, this is why I'm saying have a cartoon based on them, to have the fans pleased. As I said, it's meant for everyone.

As for me, as long as it's well written and has personality, it's fine, it needs a lot of action scenes, but I'm looking forward to the artistic cast's performance too.

[PeterPancake]

My idea for the live action Sonic movie isn't that far off from what we're getting, at least narratively. I'd still do an "ET-esque" story because that's the most accessible vintage point for casual fans to jump in.

 

I'd just incorporate more elements from the franchise. Instead of race against time to get Sonic's rings, it would be to get the Chaos Emeralds. Tails, Knuckles and Amy would be in the movie as main characters. Tom would be the POV but it would be THEIR story. He's just the conduit by which their story is relayed to the audience. We'd get Sonic and Tails' brotherhood/friendship as the emotional core of the story since Sonic feels protective over Tails as a little brother. GUN would be after Sonic and Friends and in the end they decide to stay on Earth but in a twist, Sonic's world ends up fusing with Earth's world via Chaos Control and then we realize that 'Planet X' aka Mobius, is really Earth in the future from an alternative reality. 

 

Robotnik would be a serious character and he would be deformed in the accident that brings Sonic and friends to Earth. The final battle would take place in Mobius 

 

And as for the designs, they'd be pretty similar to what we have now except Sonic would have peach arms, buckle shoes and a aerodynamic take on the white gloves like this

 

. 

Everybody else would have their own unique designs. Tails would have more stuff on. Maybe kneepads, a belt and some kind if headgear. Tech he made himself

[Tarnish]

28 minutes ago, Jack the Shadow said:

the movie was never gonna try to please just the fans, because there aren't that many

You know what would be really handy? A good CGI Sonic movie and see how that would actually do in the box office. Because it's getting kind of annoying hearing "well a movie aimed mostly at fans would never do good"..did they ever try that to know that's really the case?

Because I'm starting to feel more and more like this is the same case like when EA claimed single player games are no longer popular..only to be proven wrong again and again.

[Scritch the Cat]

26 minutes ago, Jack the Shadow said:

Eh.

I respect that, but realistically speaking, I'm gonna say it again: the movie was never gonna try to please just the fans, because there aren't that many, it's just not enough to sell a movie, they need to appeal to everyone, hence the design (which is still cartoony apparently) and the buddy cop dynamic. I know fans want something 1:1 with the games, this is why I'm saying have a cartoon based on them, to have the fans pleased. As I said, it's meant for everyone.

As for me, as long as it's well written and has personality, it's fine, it needs a lot of action scenes, but I'm looking forward to the artistic cast's performance too.

But is all of that stuff really so broadly appealing?  I know buddy-cop films are pretty common, and some, like Zootopia, are successes, but is it really because they're buddy-cop films?  Moreover given that film's success, as well as the warmer reception Detective Pikachu is getting, can you really say that more animated animals would make this film less appealing?  Finally, can you say for sure that people who by default would be turned off by a film called "Sonic the Hedgehog" can be made more generous toward it if they mix in...cliches, basically?

I for one am not convinced of this. While I accept that a movie can't create a 1:1 recreation of the games (and it shouldn't, either), there should be some understanding that "Let's make a Sonic movie" doesn't just mean "Let's make a movie with Sonic in it."  It means translating what worked in the games into something that works in a movie; not keeping it as is but not ignoring it either.

On that note, I'm still hanging on for more about how this movie explains Sonic showing up in our world, since that still seems like one aspect of world building they can't possibly ignore.  I'm not expecting a graceful treatment of this, but I'm still curious.

[Red Hot Jack]

1 hour ago, Tarnish said:

You know what would be really handy? A good CGI Sonic movie and see how that would actually do in the box office. Because it's getting kind of annoying hearing "well a movie aimed mostly at fans would never do good"..did they ever try that to know that's really the case?

Because I'm starting to feel more and more like this is the same case like when EA claimed single player games are no longer popular..only to be proven wrong again and again.

Rachet & Clank got a CGI movie right? I believe that flopped, MLP also had an animated movie and failed too. Sonic just isn't that big of a name alone IMO, he is not Mario or Spiderman who sell based on the name, Sonic needs the guys behind Deadpool, Fast and Furious, James Marsden and Jim Carrey to have attention. I know it's sad but it's the thruth. A movie for the big screen needs... you know, big names. This is why an animated feature would be a better fit for TV.

[Splash the Otter]

8 minutes ago, Jack the Shadow said:

Sonic just isn't that big of a name alone IMO, he is not Mario or Spiderman who sell based on the name, Sonic needs the guys behind Deadpool, Fast and Furious, James Marsden and Jim Carrey to have attention.

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure Sonic is a big enough name to market a movie on his own.

[Diogenes]

If Sonic can't carry a movie, why are they making a Sonic movie?

I'm not saying things have to be exactly as they are in the games, but if they're changing so much that they're pissing off the fans and ending up with something that hardly even seems like Sonic, what is the point of the whole thing?

[Red Hot Jack]

4 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

If Sonic can't carry a movie, why are they making a Sonic movie?

I'm not saying things have to be exactly as they are in the games, but if they're changing so much that they're pissing off the fans and ending up with something that hardly even seems like Sonic, what is the point of the whole thing?

In fact I'm questioning that too, the only reason for a Sonic movie I suspect is... to make more people know Sonic. To make him more popular?

I would rather have an animated thing, it would surely please me more, and I'm not gonna enjoy the movie if it's completely different from the original franchise.

[PeterPancake]

20 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

If Sonic can't carry a movie, why are they making a Sonic movie?

I'm not saying things have to be exactly as they are in the games, but if they're changing so much that they're pissing off the fans and ending up with something that hardly even seems like Sonic, what is the point of the whole thing?

To make money. The same reason the games are made or any product is made.

[Sega DogTagz]

11 minutes ago, Jack the Shadow said:

In fact I'm questioning that too, the only reason for a Sonic movie I suspect is... to make more people know Sonic. To make him more popular?

If that was the case, then Sega would develop it in house.

As it stands Paramount went out of their way to acquire the movie rights, as did Sony before them. Neither company's movie division had any vested interest in strengthening Sonic's brand before hand meaning the only reason you get the rights to a Sonic movie is because you believe that it can be profitable.

If someone somewhere didn't think Sonic's name could move some Seats/Merch we wouldn't be getting a Sonic movie.

[Diogenes]

4 minutes ago, PeterPancake said:

To make money. The same reason the games are made or any product is made.

If the only reason is to make money then the movie's probably going to be soulless shit.

[Scritch the Cat]

32 minutes ago, Jack the Shadow said:

Rachet & Clank got a CGI movie right? I believe that flopped, MLP also had an animated movie and failed too. Sonic just isn't that big of a name alone IMO, he is not Mario or Spiderman who sell based on the name, Sonic needs the guys behind Deadpool, Fast and Furious, James Marsden and Jim Carrey to have attention. I know it's sad but it's the thruth. A movie for the big screen needs... you know, big names. This is why an animated feature would be a better fit for TV.

But can't they have those things and more things from the series that fans like?  If this is supposed to be people's gateway drug to the Sonic series, then you'd think it would be a bit more interested in showing off more of the Sonic series.  Yes; there's a limit to what they can do in one movie, but what few things we've gotten so far don't even feel like the bare essentials of a Sonic plot.  Sonic's in it, Robotnik's in it, but how do they interact?  Why have we heard more about human characters that aren't Robotnik?

I won't go as far as DreamSaturn and say this movie's Sonic design and buddy-cop premise will necessarily ruin it, but they sure aren't going to save it, and until we get told of some things that might, it's hard to be optimistic.  Even if it turns out they didn't make this movie wrong, I'm of the opinion that so far they've really marketed it wrong.  All it would take to make fans more optimistic would be summarizing a premise that feels more right for Sonic, and again, if they don't have that they're dumb for not having it, and if they do have that they're dumb for not sharing it.

[Rabid-Coot]

Ratchet was doomed to failure as soon as Sony farmed it out to some minor companies instead of it being made in house. Pony film was a big success financially 61 million doesn't look like much but its a great return on a 6.5 million budget.

[CaptainRobo]

I think it's safe to say that the trailer will release sometime in the Spring. It's probably too early for them to release a trailer this month.  Probably will be releasing next month or April or May. The movie is going to be releasing in the Fall. So, that time might be a good time.

Oh, BTW, SXSW respond to a question about the trailer.:

 

[Dr. Detective]

Yeah, a comparison to Ratchet and Clank isn't all too reliable considering the context. That movie was farmed out and distributed by companies no one had heard of(or at least didn't care about), marketed terribly, released during a time where the family market was occupied by the still strong showing of Zootopia and the live-action Jungle Book, and yes, we can also count in the fact that Ratchet and Clank as a name isn't as strong or as recognizable as Sonic too.

Of course, if you have the right people behind getting it out to people, no one would probably care. 

I'm not sure how the Ratchet and Clank movie flopping means that they needed to make the Sonic movie live-action. That would suggest that all the Ratchet and Clank movie needed to do in order to not flop was be live-action and, I'm sorry to say, that's not true. 

You got something dumb like the Angry Birds Movie grossing over 353 million worldwide on a budget of 73 million while being animated. At the same time, the goddamn Assassin's Creed movie lost the studio it was under around 75 to 100 Million dollars. 

Both animated and live-action movies have the ability to make and lose money. Knowing when to make something animated or live-action is a aesthetic choice supported by artistic integrity and a suspect awareness of what would resonate well with the audience you're targeting.

Also, the context for something like Detective Pikachu is different from the context of something like Sonic. Or Mario while we're at it. 

Yeah, remember when Mario tried to go live-action? That didn't look or feel right either and Mario is a goddamn human. 

It worked when Captain Lou Albano did it but only really because it's was purposefully trying to be absurd. Plus, there was an actual cartoon still attached to the Super show, showcasing the fact that the intended version of Mario was of his cartoon form. 

[MrPolynomialX]

Nothing is being revealed, probably because of the amount of backlash the posters received last year.

[Scritch the Cat]

3 hours ago, Dr. Detective Mike said:

Yeah, a comparison to Ratchet and Clank isn't all too reliable considering the context. That movie was farmed out and distributed by companies no one had heard of(or at least didn't care about), marketed terribly, released during a time where the family market was occupied by the still strong showing of Zootopia and the live-action Jungle Book, and yes, we can also count in the fact that Ratchet and Clank as a name isn't as strong or as recognizable as Sonic too.

Of course, if you have the right people behind getting it out to people, no one would probably care. 

I'm not sure how the Ratchet and Clank movie flopping means that they needed to make the Sonic movie live-action. That would suggest that all the Ratchet and Clank movie needed to do in order to not flop was be live-action and, I'm sorry to say, that's not true. 

You got something dumb like the Angry Birds Movie grossing over 353 million worldwide on a budget of 73 million while being animated. At the same time, the goddamn Assassin's Creed movie lost the studio it was under around 75 to 100 Million dollars. 

Both animated and live-action movies have the ability to make and lose money. Knowing when to make something animated or live-action is a aesthetic choice supported by artistic integrity and a suspect awareness of what would resonate well with the audience you're targeting.

Also, the context for something like Detective Pikachu is different from the context of something like Sonic. Or Mario while we're at it. 

Yeah, remember when Mario tried to go live-action? That didn't look or feel right either and Mario is a goddamn human. 

It worked when Captain Lou Albano did it but only really because it's was purposefully trying to be absurd. Plus, there was an actual cartoon still attached to the Super show, showcasing the fact that the intended version of Mario was of his cartoon form. 

A few things to note:

First, I'm quite certain Angry Birds is better known than Assasin's Creed.  I wouldn't be surprised if more adults play it than children, given it's on platforms used for other things than just playing games and is pitched to more people than just stereotypical gamers.  But even if said adults normally preferred live-action movies, they'd probably consider a live-action adaptation of Angry Birds to be absurd.  

Second, for what this is worth I think a live-action Mario could have worked if only the human characters were the only live-actors, they wore their signature outfits more, and the none-human characters were more accurate looking puppets or computer models.

2 hours ago, MrPolynomialX said:

Nothing is being revealed, probably because of the amount of backlash the posters received last year.

If these people were bothered by backlash, then why did they react to it by opening a Twitter account that immediately started trolling people and retweeting the mockery?  I'll admit that I laughed, but what's their plan for promoting the movie?  Either they've got something great they're planning to spring on the people whom they've kept morbidly curious, or they recognize that without bad publicity they would have none at all.  I hope it's the former, but that's all it is so far; hope.

[Gamecuber64]

This is why I keep saying it's a good thing that this film might be having a lot of comedic elements. It's obviously going to have action, but it's also going to have a lot of jokes.

It's HOPEFULLY not taking the concept of a cartoon blue hedgehog that runs and collects rings TOO seriously.

[Scritch the Cat]

1 hour ago, Gamecuber64 said:

This is why I keep saying it's a good thing that this film might be having a lot of comedic elements. It's obviously going to have action, but it's also going to have a lot of jokes.

It's HOPEFULLY not taking the concept of a cartoon blue hedgehog that runs and collects rings TOO seriously.

I agree.  But these days, I hope it's not taking itself too dis-seriously, either.  Even Deadpool had parts that were more serious and morbid than anything Pontaff and the Sonic Boom writers have bothered to do.