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

[Alexios31]

6 minutes ago, Ruomarta said:

Not to say that he can't, but you do realize that international travel is EXTREMELY expensive, especially these days? And not to jinx his financial situation, but who knows what issue may come down the line for him.

Thank you for the understanding. It will be very costly but I think it’s something that needs to be done. I simply can’t wait u til January. 

[DCFCSonic20]

29 minutes ago, Alexios31 said:

No press screenings here until early January. I honestly might have to fly to the states...

Honestly not worth it if the movie is going to be shit.

[Sega DogTagz]

3 minutes ago, StaticMania said:

Sonic should've expected to get shot...even though he did nothing to warrant getting shot.

Sonic should not have expected to get shot...because he did nothing to warrant that.

People get shot for trespassing all the time. Furthermore, this film takes place in the US. People get shot for far less round these parts.

3 minutes ago, StaticMania said:

From what I see with this type of complaint is that Sonic should've predicted the guy would shoot and react accordingly. That's all it is.

Or should I use the word expect.

It has nothing to do with prediction. The sequence of events happened slowly enough that even a normal person would have had time to look up and decipher that the dude was holding a gun. Let alone someone with super speed.

With a gun pointed at his face (Tom didn't shoot on sight) and Sonic on his feet he didn't need to predict anything. He's fast enough to dodge gunfire at a standstill later in the movie. Its a joke to suggest he wouldn't have been prepared for a dart from a guy pointing a gun at him. He was staring right at it. He was ready for it. He knew what situation he was in. He could have bailed at any point in time. But he still got tagged.

Thats stupid.

[DCFCSonic20]

1 hour ago, Legendary Emerald said:

Just for fun though, in addition to my example of Ghosbusters 2016,  I also remember the initial trailers for Paddington Bear being so disgusting and unfunny that I never could have imagined it being decent. To my and everyone else's surprise, it became a modern family film classic and got a sequel only a few years later. And I STILL haven't seen it, because the imagery in that trailer was so bad. Even if this Sonic movie did turn out to be a good family film, I probably wouldn't be able to bring myself to watch it for the same reason.

That is a terrible reason for not wanting to watch it. Whatever happened to don't judge a book by its cover? Has that phrase literally been thrown out the window?

[SaturnWolf]

1 minute ago, DCFCSonic20 said:

That is a terrible reason for not wanting to watch it. Whatever happened to don't judge a book by its cover? Has that phrase literally been thrown out the window?

What are trailers for if not to sell people on your product? If you make your product look bad, then can you really blame people for not liking it?

[StaticMania]

4 minutes ago, Sega DogTagz said:

He could have bailed at any point in time. But he still got tagged.

So he should've just ran and not screamed?

That's simpler than saying anything else, I'm fine with that.

[DCFCSonic20]

7 minutes ago, DreamSaturn said:

What are trailers for if not to sell people on your product? If you make your product look bad, then can you really blame people for not liking it?

Maybe not, if said film is given praise by critics after what seems to be of an abomination of a trailer. It does seem to overrule the trailer as a marketing strategy. What if said trailer was bad because the marketing team had no idea how to put together an exciting trailer that made people want to go see it?

Bad marketing can easily make a product look bad, but that doesn't mean that said trailer can't be overturned by positive reviews from critics and the public alike.

[Shaddy Zaphod]

39 minutes ago, KHCast said:

I watched it, it was shit, boring, and most of the humor was forced feeling. Certainly was one of the least funny films of that year. If you’re seriously insinuating most who don’t like it never saw it or are bigots that hate women, I’m at a loss for words

I don't think it was a good movie either, but when a not-insignificant portion of the conversation surrounding it was "MUH FORCED DIVERSITY" and "FEMENSIM IS RUINING MOVIES" bullshit, you can't act like a lot of the negative reception wasn't from assholes arguing in bad faith.

[DCFCSonic20]

Just now, Shaddy Zaphod said:

I don't think it was a good movie either, but when a not-insignificant portion of the conversation surrounding it was "MUH FORCED DIVERSITY" and "FEMENSIM IS RUINING MOVIES" bullshit, you can't act like a lot of the negative reception wasn't from assholes arguing in bad faith.

People just get automatically triggered when political correctness ruins their favourite childhood movies.

 

[SaturnWolf]

1 minute ago, DCFCSonic20 said:

Maybe not, if said film is given praise by critics after what seems to be of an abomination of a trailer. It does seem to overrule the trailer as a marketing strategy. What if said trailer was bad because the marketing team had no idea how to put together an exciting trailer that made people want to go see it?

Bad marketing can easily make a product look bad, but that doesn't mean that said trailer can't be overturned by positive reviews from critics and the public alike.

Then they should get a new marketing team and give us a trailer that doesn't make the movie look like shlock.

[KHCast]

@Shaddy Zaphod Yeah that’s great and all, I acknowledge there’s a large group of idiots like that, same as the groups that complain about diversity in marvel and star wars, but the film still was genuinely bad to a lot of people just on the films merits by itself, that’s my argument. 

[Diogenes]

23 minutes ago, Sega DogTagz said:

If people like me let it be, then future writers will try to get away with it.

And they fucking should "get away with it", because it's not even a problem unless you go out of your way to make it one.

There'll be more than enough reasons to hate this movie without having to be this guy.

[DCFCSonic20]

4 minutes ago, DreamSaturn said:

Then they should get a new marketing team and give us a trailer that doesn't make the movie look like shlock.

A bad reaction to a trailer is better than no reaction at all. For all we know, that may be the marketing strategy to make people go see said film. 

Heck for all we know, that might be what Paramount is trying to do with the Sonic movie. 

[Ruomarta]

19 minutes ago, Alexios31 said:

Thank you for the understanding. It will be very costly but I think it’s something that needs to be done. I simply can’t wait u til January. 

You know, I actually quite admire your enthusiasm for this movie. This is coming from someone who bash the concept of this crapshow of a movie from the very beginning and who wants it to fail hard. I honestly hope you keep that enthusiasm.

[SaturnWolf]

Just now, DCFCSonic20 said:

A bad reaction to a trailer is better than no reaction at all. For all we know, that may be the marketing strategy to make people go see said film. 

Heck for all we know, that might be what Paramount is trying to do with the Sonic movie. 

Making your film look like garbage is a really bad way to make people want to see it.

Then again, plenty of people gave the Emoji Movie irony money so maybe bad movies are the way of the future.

[Shaddy Zaphod]

5 minutes ago, KHCast said:

@Shaddy Zaphod Yeah that’s great and all, I acknowledge there’s a large group of idiots like that, same as the groups that complain about diversity in marvel and star wars, but the film still was genuinely bad to a lot of people just on the films merits by itself, that’s my argument. 

Well yeah, and so was The Last Jedi, a movie I thought was okay. The point is that the negative reception to these films pushing for diversity can totally be a product of issues with the movie, but that people complaining about them daring to be diverse is a group that doesn't seem to be getting smaller, and will always be worth taking into account as having partially tainted the results. Personal opinions on execution and detail are fine but I don't think those are what was being discussed.

[Tarnish]

Might have been posted already, but eh...At least we know what they used for reference:

[KHCast]

This argument when applied to Sonic though is pretty weak and based on a guess, not a definite proof. Sure I can see the point made with “progressive” films, bigots and assholes are gonna in mass attack them, I get that, however the Sonic film isn’t from the look of it, looking to be “progressive” in any way. It just looks bad.  bringing it up in the first place just feels pointless since the two situations aren’t really comparable outside someone trying to use the ghostbusters film as a reason people MIGHT in mass be troll hating the movie 

[DCFCSonic20]

Just now, DreamSaturn said:

Making your film look like garbage is a really bad way to make people want to see it.

Then again, plenty of people gave the Emoji Movie irony money so maybe bad movies are the way of the future.

For some people, bad trailers used reverse psychology to make people go see it. 

I've seen plenty of people in the YouTube comments section saying they'll "go see the film to see how bad it is." Then maybe they'll be shocked when it actually turns out to be semi-decent or actually good.

[SaturnWolf]

Just now, DCFCSonic20 said:

For some people, bad trailers used reverse psychology to make people go see it. 

I've seen plenty of people in the YouTube comments section saying they'll "go see the film to see how bad it is." Then maybe they'll be shocked when it actually turns out to be semi-decent or actually good.

Imagine how many people people they could get to want to see it if they actually made a good trailer that made the movie look good.

[Tornado]

24 minutes ago, DCFCSonic20 said:

A bad reaction to a trailer is better than no reaction at all. For all we know, that may be the marketing strategy to make people go see said film. 

Heck for all we know, that might be what Paramount is trying to do with the Sonic movie. 

10 minutes ago, DCFCSonic20 said:

For some people, bad trailers used reverse psychology to make people go see it. 

I've seen plenty of people in the YouTube comments section saying they'll "go see the film to see how bad it is." Then maybe they'll be shocked when it actually turns out to be semi-decent or actually good.

Sony tried that with Ghostbusters 2016, functionally weaponizing the atrocious response the trailer got with an extensive marketing campaign to essentially antagonize people into seeing it to see if it was really as bad as everyone was reacting to it. So assured that it would be a huge hit due to this brilliant plan that they wanted to turn it into a tentpole franchise and signed everyone involved to two sequel films.

They ended up taking a bath on it and have already  tried to erase it from existence like they did with the two different Spiderman franchises they had.

 

 

 

Paramount isn't spending the stupid money Sony spent on that movie, but 90 million is a lot more money then the developers of Goat Simulator had.

[PaddyFancy]

40 minutes ago, Alexios31 said:

Thank you for the understanding. It will be very costly but I think it’s something that needs to be done. I simply can’t wait u til January. 

Its an extraordinarily big gamble. If you're seriously considering doing this, you better plan some sort of alternative activities to counter the possibility that your main motivation for travelling halfway across the world might actually not be anywhere near as good as you claim it will be.

If your depression for not being able to wait two months before a movie comes out in your region is that bad, you better make sure this expensive trip is worth it. And trust me, if you realise in your heart of hearts that its indeed bad, don't try and lie to yourself that its good. Go and do something in addition to watching the movie you might enjoy so to not make this a potentially wasted trip.

Otherwise, this just isn't worth the stress. Its a movie.

[Legendary Emerald]

21 minutes ago, KHCast said:

This argument when applied to Sonic though is pretty weak and based on a guess, not a definite proof. Sure I can see the point made with “progressive” films, bigots and assholes are gonna in mass attack them, I get that, however the Sonic film isn’t from the look of it, looking to be “progressive” in any way. It just looks bad.  bringing it up in the first place just feels pointless since the two situations aren’t really comparable outside someone trying to use the ghostbusters film as a reason people MIGHT in mass be troll hating the movie 

I brought up the movie as an example of something that had a bad trailer that people reacted negatively towards but ended up being perfectly fine and did not negatively impact its franchise. I never implied that this Sonic film would face the same sort of opposition that Ghosbusters did, and I am not on the side which thinks people are just trolling this Sonic film with dislikes. I said as much in my post: this trailer is bad,  I expect the movie to be bad, and by discussing how trailers are made I am backing up my expectations. I brought up Ghostbusters specifically because I felt it was a poor example of a bad trailer leading to a bad film, but that is the example I saw multiple times in this thread. If I had remembered Paddington Bear first, I would have gone with that instead because it is closer stylistically to Sonic and thus a more sensible point of comparison.

Edit: Even thought Ghostbusters turned out fine, its pretty undeniable the negative effect the trailer had at the box office. Whether or not Sonic faces the same will depend on how discerning children are these days, as Ghosbusters was not a children's film and couldn't rely as much on tired parents being dragged to it.

[Tarnish]

17 minutes ago, DCFCSonic20 said:

I've seen plenty of people in the YouTube comments section saying they'll "go see the film to see how bad it is."

Sadly this is how it seems to work. "We and everyone I know went and watched that movie that had that god awful trailer. Yeah, it was crap. How do so many of these crap movies make money tho?"

[Scritch the Cat]

15 minutes ago, Tornado said:

Sony tried that with Ghostbusters 2016, functionally weaponizing the atrocious response the trailer got with an extensive marketing campaign to essentially antagonize people into seeing it to see if it was really as bad as everyone was reacting to it. So assured that it would be a huge hit due to this brilliant plan that they wanted to turn it into a tentpole franchise and signed everyone involved to two sequel films.

They ended up taking a bath on it and have already  tried to erase it from existence like they did with the two different Spiderman franchises they had.

 

 

 

Paramount isn't spending the stupid money Sony spent on that movie, but 90 million is a lot more money then the developers of Goat Simulator had.

Here's a thought for developers who feel they're too troubled by angry nostalgiaists who can't move on: Just make new properties for new people.  Moreover, understand with whom you're dealing when making a Sonic movie.  You're welcome to a negative opinion of these fandoms, but you're not likely to change them by making something they hate, and frankly you aren't owed patronage by people outside the fandom.  For as finicky as Sonic fandom is, it's also huge, but people outside it tend to regard Sonic poorly.  If you don't want to make a Sonic movie for the fans, good luck finding any other audience.