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

[Sonic Fan J]

I know I'm guilty of it as well, but a lot of the blind bashing I've seen here and there and saying that things in the movie just aren't faithful to a rather inconsistent series has put a thought in my mind.

A lot of defenders of the movie still insist that we can't just tear apart the movie based on the trailer and plot synopsis arguing things like origin story or respecting the creators' vision (curious they don't apply this to respecting SEGA's vision or that of Naka, Oshima, and Yasaharu). But I feel there is an aspect that deserves a bit more of an in depth look at and that is the quality of adaption that the movie is. Bar the quality of the movie itself or any of it's designs it is still adapting another work and can be judged at this point on that. Now me, I don't think it has adapted anything well yet that I look to in Sonic but I've made my stance clear on that plenty of other times already using Indiana Jones as my go to for how I'd go about fitting Hollywood and Sonic together. But I am curious how others break it down from a quality of adaption angle. How do you feel about how the IP is being adapted for the movie and how well they actually adapt it and represent the IP?

[Splash the Otter]

3 hours ago, Sonic Fan J said:

I know I'm guilty of it as well, but a lot of the blind bashing I've seen here and there and saying that things in the movie just aren't faithful to a rather inconsistent series has put a thought in my mind.

A lot of defenders of the movie still insist that we can't just tear apart the movie based on the trailer and plot synopsis arguing things like origin story or respecting the creators' vision (curious they don't apply this to respecting SEGA's vision or that of Naka, Oshima, and Yasaharu). But I feel there is an aspect that deserves a bit more of an in depth look at and that is the quality of adaption that the movie is. Bar the quality of the movie itself or any of it's designs it is still adapting another work and can be judged at this point on that. Now me, I don't think it has adapted anything well yet that I look to in Sonic but I've made my stance clear on that plenty of other times already using Indiana Jones as my go to for how I'd go about fitting Hollywood and Sonic together. But I am curious how others break it down from a quality of adaption angle. How do you feel about how the IP is being adapted for the movie and how well they actually adapt it and represent the IP?

I don't think it's being adapted well at all. The only elements from the games are Sonic, Eggman, rings and a place called Green Hill. This series has a wealth of things that could be put in a movie and they're only using the bare minimum of elements from the first game!

[Tarnish]

2 hours ago, Splash the Otter said:

I don't think it's being adapted well at all. The only elements from the games are Sonic, Eggman, rings and a place called Green Hill. This series has a wealth of things that could be put in a movie and they're only using the bare minimum of elements from the first game!

Yep, they had the golden opportunity to make a "best of Sonic the hedgehog" compilation of things, using the best, most loved (or just coolest looking) elements of the franchise while cutting out a lot of the fat. Like I dunno:
- the Sonic and Tails friendship (do people still care about that anymore or is that a thing of the distant past?)
- showing some of the crazy, colorful locations from the games
- wacky robot designs
- Metal Sonic battle
- a Sonic and Tails in the Tornado chase scene could make for a cool, fast paced action beat
- chase for the Chaos Emeralds (when was the last time the Emeralds were actually an importance in the games? Generations? Colors didn't mention them, Lost World was busy with the deadly stereotypes, Forces already had the new doohickey gem to bother with existing ones, Sonic Boom..couldn't even tell you anymore, but probably no.)
- Super Sonic transformation and final epic battle

But nah, HUMANS! And REALISM! That's the main appeal of this franchise!

[Witto150]

On 5/31/2019 at 11:50 AM, StaticMania said:

That would be because it's not an issue.

 

On 5/31/2019 at 6:49 PM, DreamSaturn said:

Because it's not an issue. Eggman is evil, Sonic is just a guy that loves adventure and hates injustice. Simple, and that's all it needs to be.

I think I may misuse "issue". I didn't mean it as a problem, but more like a fact. I think it should be addressed. Just checking some Sonic's Games Timelines Videos brings some plotholes. I know the authors never thought Sonic's word would grow so big and fast, so it can get complicated. But people complain about how that or that doesn't fit and how Sega is lazy with their timeline/story. If the timeline or the whole universe isn't important, why people bother complaining? Why Sega bothered making Sonic's family for the manual in the first place? Because it matters and people must have asked about it.

I'm sure it can't be that simple. That would make both quite 2D. Sonic is charming with his personality, but you still have to ask - Why he has his powers? How does it work? Can he break his bones? How he can see? Who are his parents? He couldn't just pop up out of a thin air XD I mean, isn't past and background a part of the charm of every character? Isn't that why authors explore this? If it's so "irrelevant", they can just concentrate on the present and ditch the past altogether. I don't think Sonic is an exception.

Why does Eggman want to build the Eggman Land? If it's just for "I'm so evil and mad scientist", then that is a bit dumb. Sure, we can be simple, but "being evil just to be evil" is one of the most hated aspects of all villains and many authors avoid it like a plague. I often read about this and how many readers run away from it. Sure, Eggman has his quirks too. He is funny, sarcastic, and his mustache is a great visual indication of his mood XD But the theme park is something you don't see villains try to do. So why?

To get back to the movie topic, my apology, if I went off-topic.

People complain about => Movie Sonic avoids missiles, but can't avoid a dart.

This is really funny because the same logic works in the games too.

Eggman runs away from Sonic running at the speed of sound who is a meter behind.

Yet, nobody bashes this. Strange, isn't it?

My apology, if I sound aggressive, it's not my intention.

[StaticMania]

Just now, Witto150 said:

Why Sega bothered making Sonic's family for the manual in the first place?

They didn't.

It's stupid early draft of SoA's Sonic Bible that clearly got canned for a reason, no manual ever mentioned Sonic's family.

[Witto150]

8 minutes ago, StaticMania said:

They didn't.

It's stupid early draft of SoA's Sonic Bible that clearly got canned for a reason, no manual ever mentioned Sonic's family. 

But the Bible was published by Sega of America in 1991, so it's "official", or not? Unless Sega of Japan is higher than Sega of America XD Shouldn't they be equal? I don't know what it was, but I know some document from the early days mentioned Sonic lived with his mom and sibling/s in some forest before they had to run from humans or some other problems. Maybe it's part of the Bible or some other version.

[StaticMania]

It got canned, so it doesn't matter...they toned down everything to the point there was no reason to even make it different from what SoJ established.

[Tarnish]

3 minutes ago, Witto150 said:

But the Bible was published by Sega of America in 1991, so it's "official", or not? Unless Sega of Japan is higher than Sega of America XD Shouldn't they be equal?

It's part of the "SEGA's biggest enemy wasn't Nintendo or Sony, it was SEGA itself" story. Left hand didn't know the right was doing. Or more like it knew, but it didn't give a damn.

[Witto150]

4 hours ago, Splash the Otter said:

I don't think it's being adapted well at all. The only elements from the games are Sonic, Eggman, rings and a place called Green Hill. This series has a wealth of things that could be put in a movie and they're only using the bare minimum of elements from the first game! 

How many times it was stated this takes place before the 1st game? So, no fat Eggman, no Tails, not wacky robots. Also, the majority of Sonic's games take place in the human world (= the one we get in the movie). And let's be honest. They made all the NPC humans because of how fast they could be modeled. They were generic. If there were Mobians, they would have to think about animals, and how they fit in with Sonic and co. It would take so more time to design NPCs.

Also, no human freaked out about Sonic and Co. despite clearly seeing they are the only non-human creatures. Nobody questioned this. We took it SA1 just happens when Sonic is known to the world. We can speculate in the time-skip before SA1 Sonic visited this human dimension and got to know many of them. In what world the Sonic 1 - 3 happens? Is it Sonic's world or the human's one (where Eggman originates from)? We may never know.

The wacky robots may appear later when Dr. Robotnik discovers how to power-up robots with animals and that the animal shape makes it easier. Do you think you would look epic with lady-bug robots when conquering the world? XD I think not really XD

But seriously, give this movie a chance! It won't bite you for it

[Tarnish]

18 minutes ago, Witto150 said:

How many times it was stated this takes place before the 1st game? So, no fat Eggman, no Tails, not wacky robots. Also, the majority of Sonic's games take place in the human world (= the one we get in the movie). And let's be honest. They made all the NPC humans because of how fast they could be modeled. They were generic. If there were Mobians, they would have to think about animals, and how they fit in with Sonic and co. It would take so more time to design NPCs.

Also, no human freaked out about Sonic and Co. despite clearly seeing they are the only non-human creatures. Nobody questioned this. We took it SA1 just happens when Sonic is known to the world. We can speculate in the time-skip before SA1 Sonic visited this human dimension and got to know many of them. In what world the Sonic 1 - 3 happens? Is it Sonic's world or the human's one (where Eggman originates from)? We may never know.

The wacky robots may appear later when Dr. Robotnik discovers how to power-up robots with animals and that the animal shape makes it easier. Do you think you would look epic with lady-bug robots when conquering the world? XD I think not really XD

But seriously, give this movie a chance! It won't bite you for it

So in short: All the things you love about the franchise...yeah, that's not in this movie, we're saving it for the sequel (maybe...if we feel like it...if you're lucky.)

Awesome way to sell a movie!

I bet if they made the Titanic movie today, it would be a trilogy where the first part is the conception of the Titanic and how it was built. In the 2nd movie, it actually sets sail..

[Witto150]

15 minutes ago, Tarnish said:

So in short: All the things you love about the franchise...yeah, that's not in this movie, we're saving it for the sequel (maybe...if we feel like it...if you're lucky.)

Awesome way to sell a movie!

I bet if they made the Titanic movie today, it would be a trilogy where the first part is the conception of the Titanic and how it was built. In the 2nd movie, it actually sets sail..

So you think they should pack every character inside? Or half of them at least? With no reason for them to be there than just being there? That would make for some cluster for sure. No character development, just action and moving the plot? So Tails and Sonic being best buds just for being ones? Like no reason why Tails believes in Sonic so much?

Do you complain about the first game featuring just Sonic? No, because there was no other game before. Just like there is no movie before this one. Detective Pikachu is "criticized" most in the aspect it's a "fanfiction" for fans. People outside of the fandom have little to no chance to get interested. I think the director stated something similar that it's not exactly non-fans friendly. Do you know Paramount wants to introduce Sonic to the latest generation? Throwing the core cast into the story would sure help that. Not confusing at all.

And what is wrong with a movie that shows where it all started? How do you know you won't enjoy it? How do you know the adaptation is bad? Just because it doesn't feature Shadow, Amy, or Tails? We saw like 1/1000 of the movie. It sure is a big example we can base our data off. And the movie has Easter eggs for older fans. So, if everything was taken out, why they bother with Easter eggs? Isn't that extra work?

This kinda reminds me of the argument - We want a game with JUST Sonic Vs. We want to play AS OTHERS too. I'm sure you heard about this argument among "fans".

The Titanic was just a background, it was all about beloved cliché of tragic love. And why not? Why can't we see what was happening during the crash? Or what sparked the idea of building the biggest ship at that time? You make it sound like that couldn't make an interesting story.

[Tarnish]

1 hour ago, Witto150 said:

So you think they should pack every character inside? Or half of them at least? With no reason for them to be there than just being there? That would make for some cluster for sure. No character development, just action and moving the plot? So Tails and Sonic being best buds just for being ones? Like no reason why Tails believes in Sonic so much?

Do you complain about the first game featuring just Sonic? No, because there was no other game before. Just like there is no movie before this one. Detective Pikachu is "criticized" most in the aspect it's a "fanfiction" for fans. People outside of the fandom have little to no chance to get interested. I think the director stated something similar that it's not exactly non-fans friendly. Do you know Paramount wants to introduce Sonic to the latest generation? Throwing the core cast into the story would sure help that. Not confusing at all.

And what is wrong with a movie that shows where it all started? How do you know you won't enjoy it? How do you know the adaptation is bad? Just because it doesn't feature Shadow, Amy, or Tails? We saw like 1/1000 of the movie. It sure is a big example we can base our data off. And the movie has Easter eggs for older fans. So, if everything was taken out, why they bother with Easter eggs? Isn't that extra work?

This kinda reminds me of the argument - We want a game with JUST Sonic Vs. We want to play AS OTHERS too. I'm sure you heard about this argument among "fans".

The Titanic was just a background, it was all about beloved cliché of tragic love. And why not? Why can't we see what was happening during the crash? Or what sparked the idea of building the biggest ship at that time? You make it sound like that couldn't make an interesting story.

Obviously not every character, but you know..maybe more than the most overused 2? Tails being Sonic's best friend (supposedly) and someone he looks up to, there would be a reason why he wants to help Sonic. Same with Amy. I guess using already established characters is bad, but introducing characters the audience will not find anywhere else in the franchise but in this 1 single movie is good. Awesome way to introduce a franchise.

Detective Pikachu is still the most (or at least one of the most) well recieved video game adaption movie by the audience. It could have done the usual route of "starting the franchise that's been around for decades from scratch and building it through multiple movies (until the inevitable reboot)", but it said "fuck it" and actually just told a story to an already established audience. They didn't throw away an already established audience for the hope that there's a bigger casual one out there. Also, didn't "Into the Spider-verse" just jump in the deep-end as well? I didn't hear that many people complain about it.

Paramount just wants money...let's not fool ourselves they give 2 shits about the Sonic IP. And at best they're introducing a horrible, butchered version of Sonic here. Because when you want to introduce a cartoon-like hedgehog who runs around in wacky, colorful, out-of-this-world places, you don't show THAT to the audience, you show a horrible, ugly CGI creature that looks like a mutated human child running around in a mundane human town/city...that causes no confusion there, I'm sure.

"And what is wrong with a movie that shows where it all started?" Maybe because there was never really an origin story in the franchise in the first place? This is just some Hollywood hotshot's idea of an origin story to a franchise they seemingly understands very little of, or just doesn't respect it enough to care. How do I know I won't like it? Because the concept itself is broken. Live action Sonic is a stupid idea, no other way to slice it. It's not a promising concept with flawed execution, the concept itself is stupid that won't change no matter how much effort is put into the execution.

You totally missed my point about regarding the Titanic. My point was nowadays they would try to squeeze out as much money out of it as possible by trying to make a trilogy for a story that doesn't need one.
 

[StaticMania]

25 minutes ago, Tarnish said:

...trying to make a trilogy for a story that doesn't need one.

Two movie...

2 movie fluff...

Oh the absolute horror...

[Witto150]

15 minutes ago, Tarnish said:

I guess using already established characters is bad, but introducing characters the audience will not find anywhere else in the franchise but in this 1 single movie is good. Awesome way to introduce a franchise.

 

(I think you meant ... "single movie is bad." and the last sentence is sarcastic - Sorry, if I missed it.) Didn't Sonic X had exclusive characters? I personally enjoyed them. We can argue Chris was bad. I wasn't his fan, but if you start thinking a bit more about him, you will notice he, from all the others, had the biggest character's growth. The same can go with Tom. Sonic TV series also had a unique cast. Many are still beloved.

I'm not saying DP is a bad adaptation. Just saying it was "done for fans", while Paramount is trying to create a story for everybody to enjoy. You know that can be more tricky. The DP was picked because it shows the franchise in an alternative way. We can say, they didn't need to care for a timeline or placement. Were people outside of Spider-man fandom watching it? I don't know. Would they enjoy it? I suppose so, it's eye-candy. Action is fast-paced, with humor and the rest. But they may feel there is too many of them for a too short time.

I just have the feeling Sonic's fanbase complains about everything before knowing a thing. Sonic Forces give you your own character you can customize. And like half of the fanbase threw tantrum HOW TERRIBLE IT IS even before the game release when DBZ fighting game had the same feature year ago and like 95% of fans were totally okay with it. It makes you really think about what is wrong with people.

They want Sonic to wield gun => Throws tantrum when Shadow gets them instead, saying how terrible it is for Sonic character to have a gun.

Sonic gets sword, a noble symbol => people go wild and crazy.

So, Sega listens to the fans and gets hatred. Sweet.

So, because Sonic has no origin, there is no need for it? There can't be one? Why not? Fans asked who was Ash's father for years! Strangely, they met in him Sun and Moon anime. So - was this origin important or not? Why didn't Nintendo/Game Freak/anybody say "puck this origin idea" and never answers this?

31 minutes ago, Tarnish said:

Live action Sonic is a stupid idea, no other way to slice it.

Fun fact - There was a pitch for Sonic LIVE Action movie when Sonic Extreme was in development (the movie was meant to promote the game or vice versa). I read the plot, and yeah, surprise - the reactions below the video about it were positive. The author thought the movie sounds fun too. I would probably enjoy it as a kid, but now, as much older, I would probably think it's very stupid and with plot-holes and things happening just to move the plot.

 

34 minutes ago, Tarnish said:

concept itself is stupid that won't change 

You mean - Sonic is saving the world? Sonic is on a different planet, saving it? Sonic makes a human friend? Sonic meets with Dr. Robotnik for the first time? What "concept" do you mean? Or you just mean CGI + real actors? So, if this was fully animated it would be good?

47 minutes ago, Tarnish said:

Obviously not every character, but you know..maybe more than the most overused 2?

So, who you have in mind? Just saying 80% of fans would be pissed if there was no Tails, Amy, or Knuckles in the sequel. There is many of them I would love to see, but I'm not going to throw tantrums just because they aren't in the movie

[Splash the Otter]

3 hours ago, Witto150 said:

Why does Eggman want to build the Eggman Land? If it's just for "I'm so evil and mad scientist", then that is a bit dumb. Sure, we can be simple, but "being evil just to be evil" is one of the most hated aspects of all villains and many authors avoid it like a plague. I often read about this and how many readers run away from it. Sure, Eggman has his quirks too. He is funny, sarcastic, and his mustache is a great visual indication of his mood XD But the theme park is something you don't see villains try to do. So why?

My theory is that he used to work at a park and is trying to relive the glory days.

3 hours ago, Witto150 said:

How many times it was stated this takes place before the 1st game? So, no fat Eggman, no Tails, not wacky robots. Also, the majority of Sonic's games take place in the human world (= the one we get in the movie). And let's be honest. They made all the NPC humans because of how fast they could be modeled. They were generic. If there were Mobians, they would have to think about animals, and how they fit in with Sonic and co. It would take so more time to design NPCs.

Also, no human freaked out about Sonic and Co. despite clearly seeing they are the only non-human creatures. Nobody questioned this. We took it SA1 just happens when Sonic is known to the world. We can speculate in the time-skip before SA1 Sonic visited this human dimension and got to know many of them. In what world the Sonic 1 - 3 happens? Is it Sonic's world or the human's one (where Eggman originates from)? We may never know.

The wacky robots may appear later when Dr. Robotnik discovers how to power-up robots with animals and that the animal shape makes it easier. Do you think you would look epic with lady-bug robots when conquering the world? XD I think not really XD

But seriously, give this movie a chance! It won't bite you for it

I didn't want an origin story, damn it! And it isn't the humans or non-"wacky" robots I have a problem with. It's that so little from the games is actually being used that I question whether Paramount even wanted to make a Sonic movie.

[Witto150]

4 minutes ago, Splash the Otter said:

I didn't want an origin story, damn it! And it isn't the humans or non-"wacky" robots I have a problem with. It's that so little from the games is actually being used that I question whether Paramount even wanted to make a Sonic movie.

So, because you didn't want an origin story, it's bad? Well, I never dreamed or asked for Sonic movie, but here I'm waiting for it and excited I don't see it as bad.

Hmm, how can we judge from a few minutes? Sure, it doesn't show any loop-de-loops or monitors with boosts, but hey, aren't many game adaptation "bad" because they are too heavily based on the game? Well, the trailer has quite a number of Easter eggs. Do they count or not? Like City Escape poster/scene, pyramids, a mountain of shoes, actors/VA from previous Sonic media, and so on. And what makes Sonic's game Sonic's game? Sure, there are unique elements, but it's fast-paced gameplay and action with adventure. I think this movie shows plenty of both

[Tarnish]

1 hour ago, Witto150 said:

Didn't Sonic X had exclusive characters? I personally enjoyed them. We can argue Chris was bad. I wasn't his fan, but if you start thinking a bit more about him, you will notice he, from all the others, had the biggest character's growth.

I can say with certainty that the parts I hated most about Sonic X, was usually the parts with the humans. So basically, Sonic X went downhill with the end of the 1st episode. The amount of wasted potential in that show is amazing. They could have showed a TON of interaction we would otherwise not get to see in games between Sonic, Tails, Knuckles, Amy etc...but they rather focused on human + Sonic character interactions nobody wanted...for example, did Sonic and Tails EVER do anything together besides some minimal action scenes where Tails contributed like 1% to Sonic's 99%? I can't recall 1 instance, but I can remember a ton of Sonic screwing around with basically any other human. The focus was so misguided on the entire show...

[BaronGrackle]

2 hours ago, Witto150 said:

(I think you meant ... "single movie is bad." and the last sentence is sarcastic - Sorry, if I missed it.) Didn't Sonic X had exclusive characters? I personally enjoyed them. We can argue Chris was bad. I wasn't his fan, but if you start thinking a bit more about him, you will notice he, from all the others, had the biggest character's growth. The same can go with Tom. Sonic TV series also had a unique cast. Many are still beloved.

I'm not saying DP is a bad adaptation. Just saying it was "done for fans", while Paramount is trying to create a story for everybody to enjoy. You know that can be more tricky. The DP was picked because it shows the franchise in an alternative way. We can say, they didn't need to care for a timeline or placement. Were people outside of Spider-man fandom watching it? I don't know. Would they enjoy it? I suppose so, it's eye-candy. Action is fast-paced, with humor and the rest. But they may feel there is too many of them for a too short time.

I just have the feeling Sonic's fanbase complains about everything before knowing a thing. Sonic Forces give you your own character you can customize. And like half of the fanbase threw tantrum HOW TERRIBLE IT IS even before the game release when DBZ fighting game had the same feature year ago and like 95% of fans were totally okay with it. It makes you really think about what is wrong with people.

They want Sonic to wield gun => Throws tantrum when Shadow gets them instead, saying how terrible it is for Sonic character to have a gun.

Sonic gets sword, a noble symbol => people go wild and crazy.

So, Sega listens to the fans and gets hatred. Sweet.

So, because Sonic has no origin, there is no need for it? There can't be one? Why not? Fans asked who was Ash's father for years! Strangely, they met in him Sun and Moon anime. So - was this origin important or not? Why didn't Nintendo/Game Freak/anybody say "puck this origin idea" and never answers this?

Fun fact - There was a pitch for Sonic LIVE Action movie when Sonic Extreme was in development (the movie was meant to promote the game or vice versa). I read the plot, and yeah, surprise - the reactions below the video about it were positive. The author thought the movie sounds fun too. I would probably enjoy it as a kid, but now, as much older, I would probably think it's very stupid and with plot-holes and things happening just to move the plot.

 

You mean - Sonic is saving the world? Sonic is on a different planet, saving it? Sonic makes a human friend? Sonic meets with Dr. Robotnik for the first time? What "concept" do you mean? Or you just mean CGI + real actors? So, if this was fully animated it would be good?

So, who you have in mind? Just saying 80% of fans would be pissed if there was no Tails, Amy, or Knuckles in the sequel. There is many of them I would love to see, but I'm not going to throw tantrums just because they aren't in the movie

1) We can't truthfully call Sonic fans unpleasable anymore. We're living in an age where we have examples of Sonic games that have been received well. Maybe Boom, Lost World, and Forces were thrashed, but Colors, Generations, and Mania had at least moderate praise. And even Forces had positive feedback for things like a customizable character and the return of playable Shadow... that game's problems lay elsewhere.

2) Even if Sonic fans were unpleasable, it doesn't matter at this point. We're not talking about the Sonic fandom; we're talking about the world at large. Consumers of the world raged about Sonic's design in this film. Consumers of the world are the people Paramount wants to please here.

It's just that now, the rest of the world gets to see what Sonic fans have experienced for years now.

[SaturnWolf]

7 hours ago, Witto150 said:

I'm sure it can't be that simple. That would make both quite 2D. Sonic is charming with his personality, but you still have to ask - Why he has his powers? How does it work? Can he break his bones? How he can see? Who are his parents? He couldn't just pop up out of a thin air XD I mean, isn't past and background a part of the charm of every character? Isn't that why authors explore this? If it's so "irrelevant", they can just concentrate on the present and ditch the past altogether. I don't think Sonic is an exception.

Why does Eggman want to build the Eggman Land? If it's just for "I'm so evil and mad scientist", then that is a bit dumb. Sure, we can be simple, but "being evil just to be evil" is one of the most hated aspects of all villains and many authors avoid it like a plague. I often read about this and how many readers run away from it. Sure, Eggman has his quirks too. He is funny, sarcastic, and his mustache is a great visual indication of his mood XD But the theme park is something you don't see villains try to do. So why?

It can be that simple and it is. We don't need to know where his powers come from because it ultimately doesn't matter. It's a video game that's not trying to be realistic, rules and logic are allowed to be bent if it makes it more entertaining. Sure, a Sonic backstory could be interesting, but it's not necessary and given this series' track record with deeper stories (most of them aren't very good), I can safely say pass on that.

He wants to build it because he's an egotist and wants to take over the world. Even outside of EggmanLand in Unleashed he slaps his face and emblem everywhere he can and has modeled more than a few of his creations after himself. Simple, and that's all it needs to be.

Not every character needs to be super in-depth or fleshed out. That just ultimately bogs down a story if you try to make everyone super developed.

[Meta77]

5 hours ago, Tarnish said:

Obviously not every character, but you know..maybe more than the most overused 2? Tails being Sonic's best friend (supposedly) and someone he looks up to, there would be a reason why he wants to help Sonic. Same with Amy. I guess using already established characters is bad, but introducing characters the audience will not find anywhere else in the franchise but in this 1 single movie is good. Awesome way to introduce a franchise.

Detective Pikachu is still the most (or at least one of the most) well recieved video game adaption movie by the audience. It could have done the usual route of "starting the franchise that's been around for decades from scratch and building it through multiple movies (until the inevitable reboot)", but it said "fuck it" and actually just told a story to an already established audience. They didn't throw away an already established audience for the hope that there's a bigger casual one out there. Also, didn't "Into the Spider-verse" just jump in the deep-end as well? I didn't hear that many people complain about it.

Paramount just wants money...let's not fool ourselves they give 2 shits about the Sonic IP. And at best they're introducing a horrible, butchered version of Sonic here. Because when you want to introduce a cartoon-like hedgehog who runs around in wacky, colorful, out-of-this-world places, you don't show THAT to the audience, you show a horrible, ugly CGI creature that looks like a mutated human child running around in a mundane human town/city...that causes no confusion there, I'm sure.

"And what is wrong with a movie that shows where it all started?" Maybe because there was never really an origin story in the franchise in the first place? This is just some Hollywood hotshot's idea of an origin story to a franchise they seemingly understands very little of, or just doesn't respect it enough to care. How do I know I won't like it? Because the concept itself is broken. Live action Sonic is a stupid idea, no other way to slice it. It's not a promising concept with flawed execution, the concept itself is stupid that won't change no matter how much effort is put into the execution.

You totally missed my point about regarding the Titanic. My point was nowadays they would try to squeeze out as much money out of it as possible by trying to make a trilogy for a story that doesn't need one.
 

It's an origin story for sonic. Not tails, not any, and not metal yet. You build upon this as the series grows. You don't just drop unicorn in without world building a bit. And why is a live adaptation bad. Granted outside him looking odd what's the big deal. We have multiple versions of sonic in the wind.   And there was a orginal story for sonic, no idea why anyone would say there isn't

[Tarnish]

2 hours ago, Meta77 said:

It's an origin story for sonic. Not tails, not any, and not metal yet. You build upon this as the series grows. You don't just drop unicorn in without world building a bit. And why is a live adaptation bad. Granted outside him looking odd what's the big deal. We have multiple versions of sonic in the wind.   And there was a orginal story for sonic, no idea why anyone would say there isn't

I mean if you want a crappy foundation, this movie is perfect for that.

[Meta77]

No worse than any other story told in a sonic game.  But I mean if you have some New York times best seller script by all means share it. People act as if sonic games have some deep perfect story and other interpretations are bad. Archie's comics early years must have been tough. No series sticks to the same tales

[Tarnish]

1 hour ago, Meta77 said:

No worse than any other story told in a sonic game.  But I mean if you have some New York times best seller script by all means share it. People act as if sonic games have some deep perfect story and other interpretations are bad. Archie's comics early years must have been tough. No series sticks to the same tales

Well we can already tell this story is gonna inconsistent to the games just by the fact they have this whole "blue electricity thingy" about Sonic, and he apparently sheds his quills like crazy..2 things never ever mentioned in any game in any way whatsoever (probably because his game design DOESN'T ALLOW for him to shed quills, but who cares about details)...and they make a big deal out of both of these things in the movie so it can't be just some minor detail..

And I highly doubt Sonic is gonna have any real character development that shows how he became a hero because based on that trailer, he's like "I'm here to save your planet mah dude" right from the start. Maybe the trailer was just craply put together, but based on that trailer, he doesn't seem like an unlikely hero rising up to the task, seems like that's his goal/mission right from the start..

[PeterPancake]

Yea, that's disappointing. But that's what happens when they decided to go the kids movie route. They don't have deep arcs or any substantial character growth in these Alvin-type movies. I just hope they at least make a fun movie that families can enjoy. At least bring Sonic back into the limelight in a positive way. Because the design didn't do them any favors 

[DabigRG]

So after accidentally ending up here again and seeing that my last post/reply was 19 pages back, I'll skip on the vast amount of bullshit and just go ahead ask: What's happened here since May 8?