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

[MrPolynomialX]

8 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

Your point being?

Anyone can say they're passionate or enthusiastic or whatever. That doesn't mean whatever they're making is going to turn out good. Every single day there are passionate, enthusiastic, well-meaning people working on things that ultimately end up being crap.

Maybe, perhaps, just roll with me for a second here: they could do that without dropping a bunch of stuff that is important to the series and without introducing a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with what Sonic usually is?

And thus, you have become another pessimistic reactionary...

[StaticMania]

It'd really be nice to think about that passion leading to some decent parts...

Otherwise it'll be mostly sad.

[Blacklightning]

48 minutes ago, MrPolynomialX said:

And thus, you have become another pessimistic reactionary...

There are plenty of reasons to be justifiably pessimistic about what we know, and over the course of this thread they've been explored in pretty great depth. If you disagree with them, fine - but either say why or don't bother. We don't tolerate this "no u" bullshit around here, especially if you're going to reduce it to personal jabs like that.

[Scritch the Cat]

1 hour ago, Diogenes said:

 Every single day there are passionate, enthusiastic, well-meaning people working on things that ultimately end up being crap.

Can I please use that for a demotivational poster?  Complete with a quote of your screenname, since it sounds like that of an old-timey Greco-Roman philosopher?

[Alexios31]

I can wait for the trailer, but, I just wish we had an official reveal. 

[Tarnish]

3 hours ago, MrPolynomialX said:

Also, the movie is aiming to introduce newcomers/moviegoers to Sonic.

Correction: they are going to introduce them to a VERSION of Sonic. I'm sure there will be people who'll like this movie Sonic, but will forever couldn't care less about the game version or the games themselves.

Just like how I really like the Batman: The Animated Series, but couldn't give a rats ass about the live action Batman movies.

At best they'll create yet another subsection of the Sonic fanbase...like we need another one.

[Scritch the Cat]

7 minutes ago, Tarnish said:

Correction: they are going to introduce them to a VERSION of Sonic. I'm sure there will be people who'll like this movie Sonic, but will forever couldn't care less about the game version or the games themselves.

Just like how I really like the Batman: The Animated Series, but couldn't give a rats ass about the live action Batman movies.

At best they'll create yet another subsection of the Sonic fanbase...like we need another one.

The Batman analogy isn't very good as that cartoon borrows a lot from past incarnations of Batman, including the Danny Elfman theme song from the 1980s films, and its tone is overall the norm for Batman.  It might be better to deem the 1966 series the version whose fans don't necessarily like other versions.

As to Sonic, a good portrayal might sell newcomers on the character, but that doesn't necessarily mean too much as there are different ways his character is depicted in games and in some games there's barely any characterization.

What this could do to represent Sonic well, is shoot good action scenes that resemble game levels.  That's about as good as they can do with the movie set on Earth and starring mostly people.

[Tarnish]

56 minutes ago, Scritch the Cat said:

The Batman analogy isn't very good as that cartoon borrows a lot from past incarnations of Batman, including the Danny Elfman theme song from the 1980s films, and its tone is overall the norm for Batman.  It might be better to deem the 1966 series the version whose fans don't necessarily like other versions.

It's a perfect analogy: animated medium with a bit tamer tone vs gritty, live action, super serious movies, yet both are based on the same franchise. The point is, 2 extremely different entries that belong to the same franchise. Just because someone likes one of them there's no guarantee that person will like any of the other entries, simply because these entries are so very different.

[Tara]

1 hour ago, Tarnish said:

It's a perfect analogy: animated medium with a bit tamer tone vs gritty, live action, super serious movies, yet both are based on the same franchise. The point is, 2 extremely different entries that belong to the same franchise. Just because someone likes one of them there's no guarantee that person will like any of the other entries, simply because these entries are so very different. 

Plus, while it does heavily borrow from the comics and the Burton films, the characterization in BTAS is very different.  And even within the comics there's a lot of BASIC principles (like "is Bruce a good father?") that are often variable depending on the writer.  Comics are notoriously hard to get into both because they are extremely strict in continuity and because they tend to noticeably differ from their counterparts in other media.

[Sonic Fan J]

I've been kind of wondering about something involving the defenders of the movie that I was hoping someone could clear up for me and provide a bit of insight into the logic that drives it.

Anyway, so a frequent complaint I see against the movie (it's one I hold myself to an extant) is that it is completely disregarding all but the most superficial aspects of the franchise and as a result doesn't feel like a Sonic movie.
Now in response to this complaint most people who aim to defend the movie defend it from the stance that Sonic as is cannot work in live action or in a movie of any kind.
The frequent rebuttals to this is why make a live action movie if Sonic doesn't work in live action or why make a Sonic movie at all if he doesn't work as is.
The most common response to this that I see is to remember that this movie is aiming to create brand awareness and introduce new fans to Sonic.
This is typically followed by responses of how can you introduce someone to something that you are purposefully disregarding.
At this point the defense resets to that Sonic doesn't work as is and that these changes are necessary and that the movie isn't being made for fans with usually a side defense of look at the staff and passion to bring a sense of reassurance to the fans they just told the movie isn't for.

This rather circular argument has been persisting for a while now and the question I have for the defenders in a hope to get a better understanding of your reasons for perpetrating this circular and ineffective defense is what are you trying to accomplish?
I understand when you defend your own excitement when people respond to you by saying the movie will suck, but why jump into a conversation when people are discussing why they think the movie will suck where they are not actively attacking those looking forward to the movie? At that point aren't you just doing to them what they do you when they attack your positivity for the movie?

Now I'm obviously not innocent myself about getting involved with those who have been positive about the movie, but my intention has been to understand why the enthusiasm for something which feels so unfaithful. I've also jumped into more than my fair share of arguments that I haven't been involved in to try to bridge communication failures on both sides (I'm admittedly not very good at it due to my own bias). But for all of that I typically spend my time on this thread trying to understand the opposing viewpoints as maybe I can at least gain an appreciation for what is being done even if I don't agree with it. The defenders however constantly come across as trying to shut down the negativity that most users interacting with this thread have and I don't understand why. Are you just trying to create a more positive environment to discuss the movie in? Are you honestly trying to get people who wanted to see game Sonic on the silver screen to buy into this being the only vision that works? Are you seeking validation for liking something that is unpopular on these forums? Are you just seeking to actually have a two-way conversation about the movie in general and are tired of people being negative and closeminded? I'd really like to know so that way I can have a clearer idea of how to communicate on this thread without being dogged for not being pleased with what I've been presented with so far (bar Jim Carrey's casting even if from everything I've heard of his role it also seems off base to me).

Anyway, sorry for the kind off topic and personal post, it's just I'd like to talk about the movie without finding myself slipping into the circular arguments even if my stance is negative.

[StaticMania]

1 hour ago, Sonic Fan J said:

This rather circular argument has been persisting for a while now and the question I have for the defenders in a hope to get a better understanding of your reasons for perpetrating this circular and ineffective defense is what are you trying to accomplish?

Seeing Sonic the Hedgehog on the big screen.

That sounds pretty neat doesn't it?

It's sure to boost awareness.

[Sonic Fan J]

2 minutes ago, StaticMania said:

Seeing Sonic the Hedgehog on the big screen.

That sounds pretty neat doesn't it?

It's a shame they made a brand new Sonic to put on the big screen and one that so far is not particularly appealing. So while it's neat, I'm still not seeing Sonic as I know him on the big screen.

4 minutes ago, StaticMania said:

It's sure to boost awareness.

I really have no doubt of that, but it's also just as likely to create dissonance to go along with that awareness. I personally feel Wreck it Ralph (a movie I haven't watched) has done a better job at creating awareness of Sonic for a new generation so far. But to be fair, though the advertising campaign started back in December and is still limited to the same two posters it's not like this movie has even tried to create awareness for even itself yet beyond the most cursory glance no less the Sonic IP on a whole.

That is probably part of my problem though; I already have brand awareness of Sonic and the movie goes against what I know while claiming to aim to bring new fans in. It's a contradiction that just rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps if it had a cleared message of what it was aiming to do it'd make more sense and is also probably why I'm growing so impatient with having not yet seen a trailer despite know that primary photography ended months ago. The movie really does have the problem of having too much known without enough said and it isn't helping at all.

[Rabid-Coot]

I don't think the boost in awareness will do much really, from what we know theres no game releasing with the movie to take advantage of it.

[StaticMania]

26 minutes ago, Sonic Fan J said:

I really have no doubt of that, but it's also just as likely to create dissonance to go along with that awareness.

No, ya see...it'll be positive regardless.

Not like it's been a problem so far.

[Sonic Fan J]

8 minutes ago, Rabid-Coot said:

I don't thing the boost in awareness will do much really, from what we know theres no game releasing with the movie to take advantage of it.

I agree, and with the movie not resembling or promoting the games in anyway its existence and purpose are questionable to me. I'm really curious what the goal is beyond banking unfaithfully on an existing IP in the hopes of making a quick buck which itself doesn't make sense with Sonic being out of the public eye in a favorable light to begin with right now.

5 minutes ago, StaticMania said:

No, ya see...it'll be positive regardless.

The dissonance I refer to is between what movie fans want more of and what the franchise actually is. For fans of the movie who will have that as their first introduction to Sonic anything they seek from it in the main aspects of the franchise will be absent, most especially for those who buy into Sonic's relationship with Tom. As the movie uses so many original elements that are not in the rest of the franchise and/or serve radically different purposes what those brought into the franchise by the movie expect out of the franchise will be either absent or radically different. Now that doesn't mean they won't like what they find, but that dissonance will exist and will affect how they interact with the franchise be it for good or bad.

[StaticMania]

A 3rd possibility, they'll just like the movie and remain indifferent to the franchise.

I'd like to think that anyone curious enough to get into this series from the movie will at least do the bare minimum of research.

No ignorance necessary.

[Sonic Fan J]

Of course the idea to raising brand awareness is to get people into the franchise so while the third option is just as likely as the other two, it is an acute failure of creating interest in the series which just like changing everything defeats the purpose of the movie being a tool to raise brand awareness. Be that as it may though, you are right that it will happen regardless and that means that it is most likely that most people who watch this movie who are not already Game Sonic fans will still not be Game Sonic fans after watching it regardless of their opinion of the movie. In that regard the movie is already a failure. Of course it also doesn't help that as you also said that anyone who has been made legitimately interested already and once the advertising ramps up will do their research and decide which Sonic they want if either/any. At that point brand awareness could actually hurt the movie among some customers just due to the dissonance between the bulk of the franchise and the movie. It looks like a case of confusion in what they are trying to accomplish and that isn't actually good for selling the movie.

To me right now, the best thing the movie can do for itself is to actually distance itself as much as possible from the main bulk of the franchise once it ramps up it's advertising later on. Of course that also raises the question of why make a Sonic movie if you have to distance yourself from Sonic to be successful? This circular mess is kind of why I find myself so impatient to get to the main marketing phase for this movie as regardless of it not sounding like the type of Sonic film I want it will finally give me a clearer look into what currently looks like a mess and might actually bring some logic to it. Of course by that same note it could also just make things that much more muddled.

[Scritch the Cat]

I'm a tad more optimistic now given that I actually liked the jokes revealed in the trailers, but then again trailers are supposed to use the good parts of a film.  Also, while humor is nice to have, more important for introducing people to the brand is action; specifically action that resembles that of the games.

[SoniClub]

On 4/11/2019 at 5:22 PM, StaticMania said:

Seeing Sonic the Hedgehog on the big screen.

That sounds pretty neat doesn't it?

It's sure to boost awareness.

Even if it does somehow broaden the brand's appeal, it's broadening the appeal and awareness of this weird version of it. I can honestly only see this hurting brand recognition as it just further confuses what Sonic looks like or is supposed to be about. And I don't think the superhero comparisons are particularly fair seeing as Sonic and his design are not nearly as ubiquitous in the general public's imagination. As we've seen you can't really get away with departing so radically from the original design with this sort of character as many people were unable to recognise or were confused by Sonic's silhouette (an absolute crime when it comes to animation if you ask me) due to the drastic changes in his proportions and features.

A better comparison would perhaps be Mario. Why do you think he is so ubiquitously recognisable? It's because his 3D design has remained so darn consistent across games and merch for almost two decades now. Mario Bros, Mario Kart, Mario Party, Mario World, 3D Mario Adventures, Smash Bros? All very different games, but what's the one consistency? The plumber's design. You only need to see a portion of his silhouette on a T-shirt and you know it's a-Mario-time. That right there is fantastic branding. SEGA has gotten a lot better at bringing consistency to Sonic's design in the games and other media and marketing, so it just feels a real shame to see this film completely flip the table when it comes to respecting the core principles of the character. 

Like @Diogenes says, I'm not against change, and would be worried myself if it did look like just a 90 minute cutscene. The worlds and stories we see in the games rarely have enough elements or plot threads to satisfy the grand needs of a full-length feature film, so you are going to have to add new aspects and change existing ones in order for it to make sense as a movie. So it's absolutely not the change itself that bothers me, that's simply not what I'm arguing here. It's the way this Sonic The Hedgehog film now seems to be about a weird alien gremlin, a wannabe police officer and Jim Carrey. This buddy-cop movie premise isn't even that interesting or innovative when you ignore the fact that it's meant to be about Sonic. 

On 4/11/2019 at 5:29 AM, MrPolynomialX said:

And you seem to be ignoring the enthusiasm displayed by the cast and crew of the movie...

I think you're falling for the ostensible authenticity of such comments—at the end of the day it's just marketing. Look up any bad film and you will be able to find a behind-the-scenes or interview clip of one of the actors or directors prattling on about how unique and fantastic it's going to be. I mean, if you're working on the project, what are you going to say? Erm, film's a bit trash guys but Jim Carrey pulls a few hardy-hars!

[Scritch the Cat]

1 hour ago, Wordy said:

Even if it does somehow broaden the brand's appeal, it's broadening the appeal and awareness of this weird version of it. I can honestly only see this hurting brand recognition as it just further confuses what Sonic looks like or is supposed to be about. I don't think the superhero comparisons are particularly fair seeing as Sonic and his design is not nearly as ubiquitous in the general public's imagination. As we've seen you can't really get away with departing so radically from the original design with this sort of character as many people were unable to recognise or were confused by Sonic's silhouette (an absolute crime when it comes to animation if you ask me) due to the drastic changes in his proportions and features.

A better comparison would perhaps be Mario. Why do you think he is so ubiquitously recognisable? It's because his 3D design has remained so darn consistent across games and merch for almost two decades now. Mario Bros, Mario Kart, Mario Party, Mario World, 3D Mario Adventures, Smash Bros? All very different games, but what's the one consistency? The plumber's design. You only need to see a portion of his silhouette on a T-shirt and you know it's a-Mario-time. That right there is fantastic branding. SEGA has gotten a lot better at bringing consistency to Sonic's design in the games and other media and marketing, so it just feels a real shame to see this film completely flip the table when it comes to respecting the core principles of the character. 

Like @Diogenes says, I'm not against change, and would be worried myself if it did look like just a 90 minute cutscene. The worlds and stories we see in the games rarely have enough elements or plot threads to satisfy the grand needs of a full-length feature film, so you are going to have to add new aspects and change existing ones in order for it to make sense as a movie. So it's absolutely not the change itself that bothers me, that's simply not what I'm arguing here. It's the way this Sonic The Hedgehog film now seems to be about a weird alien gremlin, a wannabe police officer and Jim Carrey. The premise isn't even interesting or innovative ignoring the fact that it's meant to be about Sonic. 

I think you're falling for the ostensible authenticity of such comments—at the end of the day it's just marketing. Look up any bad film and you will be able to find a behind-the-scenes or interview clip of one of the actors or directors prattling on about how unique and fantastic it's going to be. I mean, if you're working on the project, what are you going to say? Erm, film's a bit trash guys but Jim Carrey pulls a few hardy-hars!

I want to add to that something: The qualities that actors admire in a movie are not necessarily the ones that it's primary audience will like; much less want.  

Maybe they've managed to put together a great buddy-cop comedy, with the addition of a mad scientist hunting a super-fast alien hedgehog, and to them that may be enough.  To people who are more familiar with movies than video games, it feels like they took an old concept and made it new again by adding some epic elements.  Start with the base assumption that this is a buddy-cop movie, and it WILL feel like it goes above and beyond.

However, that isn't the base assumption Sonic fans will bring to this.  We want Sonic and things related to Sonic, so to us this doesn't feel like a cliched premise being revitalized by epic elements so much as an epic being bogged down by cliched elements.

Yes; we aren't everyone who will see this movie, but who is?  No matter how enthusiastic these people are about their product, a lot of standard movie-goers aren't going to take it seriously because of its title.  They might get more business pitching it at children, but with "Gangster's Paradise" the theme of their trailer, do they have a good plan for that?

[StaticMania]

1 hour ago, Wordy said:

Even if it does somehow broaden the brand's appeal, it's broadening the appeal and awareness of this weird version of it.

Saying things like it'll make people more aware of Sonic is just what people say when they don't know what to praise.

That's the whole point.

Optimism is all the niceness.

[Scritch the Cat]

1 hour ago, StaticMania said:

Saying things like it'll make people more aware of Sonic is just what people say when they don't know what to praise.

That's the whole point.

Optimism is all the niceness.

On that note, you could just as easily say Sonic 2006 made people more aware of Sonic.  Maybe not people unfamiliar with video games, but certainly people who were familiar with video games as a whole but had no prior reason to think of Sonic specifically.

The idea that making people more aware of Sonic will automatically make them more positive towards it, is flawed.  If people see a movie, dislike it (or like it for reasons it didn't intend), and want to see more out of morbid curiosity, they don't need to look far to discover the parts of Sonic that garner the most shame.  If they sincerely like it, meanwhile, and want to see more of Sonic in general, the public consensus doesn't immediately direct them to the best parts.

[CaptainRobo]

Check out this really cool storyboard video. It’s looks really cool!

It would be awesome if a scene similar to this is actually in the movie.

 

[Gamecuber64]

Okay I just realized something, and it actually makes sense, and it could be something fans might appreciate (or you'll just hate on this film more again literally because it's different but I respect your opinion). The whole ring transportation thing is actually likely a reference in itself to the giant rings that would transport you to special stages. A "different dimension".

Also I think the reason why chaos emeralds aren't involved is because again, this likely takes place during Sonic 1, and Sonic doesn't turn super in Sonic 1. He is probably going to turn super in the sequel if it's based off of Sonic 2 because that is a major moment in the game's story. That means Tails will be involved too.

[SaturnWolf]

30 minutes ago, Gamecuber64 said:

 (or you'll just hate on this film more again literally because it's different

See it's the kinds of passive swipes that are getting people pissed off here.

I have no doubt that people hate it for that reason. But if you're going to look at these past 363 pages of people going very in depth with their concerns and what they don't like, and you STILL say that "Well, you just hate it because it's DIFFERENT", then I truly don't know what to tell you.