Jump to content
Badnik Mechanic

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

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Apollo Chungus said:

Film got delayed to Feb 14 2020. You've missed nothing otherwise. 

Oh yeah, I did hear about that elsewhere but never bothered to come back here. 

Okay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tarnish said:

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..

Well, in the 1st game he dived right into saving the planet/animals XD That line was more like showing he is from a different planet and not native. If Sonic's game character is "a guy who loves adventure" it can easily include "saving the world" or "just stopping the injustice". And I'm not sure, but I don't think Sonic had any big character growth in the games. Yeah, he had it tough (werehog, Seven rings), but he still stayed the same. Or the change was minimal like by learning he has to say goodbye to some people (Chip, Elise).

The sneak peeks from the movie pre-screening shows there is development as both Tom and Sonic try to figure out where to go or what to do. We also don't know how much was before the "saving your planet" scene. Dr. Robotnik may not be the real threat, but just a guy getting in their way, ignoring or not knowing about the real danger. On the other hand, he may want to destroy the world and Sonic has to stop him.

What if something from Sonic's world got into the human's world? Maybe some ring (Red Star Ring?), or time and space setting that can cause both dimensions/planet to collide? 

11 hours ago, Tarnish said:

Well we can already tell this story is gonna inconsistent to the games

I have the feeling without many theories and deep analysis, the games are also inconsistent ^_^; The biggest example can be the moon after SA2. I remember especially with Unleashed people complained about how the moon looks fine. The official statement was like "you are just watching the part that is fine" or "the moon collapse to create a ball, just smaller". There are more examples, and some theories (while very correct and tieing the loose ends) makes people throw tantrums, attacking the theorist. Only because this theory is different from their own.

11 hours ago, Tarnish said:

(probably because his game design DOESN'T ALLOW for him to shed quills, but who cares about details)

Well, if we consider Game Sonic to have just a set number of thick quills, it makes shedding "impossible". I checked some 3D model where it seems he has 8 - 6 on the head, 2 on back, so let's go with it. So, if he has 8 quills, that means shedding one results in losing 1/8. Wouldn't that turn him almost bald? Boom Sonic actually addresses this in better detail. We don't see just the main ones, but smaller ones too. That is the base for thinking - the big quills are made of smaller quills/parts. The quills were turned into a cluster to keep the design fluid and simple. It's the same case with the mono-tooth thingy.

If the fur on Movie Sonic is weird, what has Modern Sonic? Bare skin? Fur? Super short quills all over his body? The real hedgehogs do have fur on their bodies (belly, legs, face,...) and the quills are a hair too. (From Wikipedia: Hedgehogs are easily recognized by their spines, which are hollow hairs made stiff with keratin. )

So, for Movie Sonic to have fur is actually okay, since real hedgehogs have fur "all over their body". He may just be able to turn his attack-quills hard. Also, hedgehogs shed their spines when they are turning adults, so the shedding is also correct for Movie Sonic. After all, his age is probably around 15-year-old.

You say "who cares about details"... so, why people cared and rioted for Modern Sonic having green eyes and a different shade of blue when he was first introduced? When I heard about Modern Sonic got the hatred for those two details, I had to knock on my forehead. Are Sonic fans so...? It's hard to find the right word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Witto150 said:

Well, in the 1st game he dived right into saving the planet/animals XD That line was more like showing he is from a different planet and not native. If Sonic's game character is "a guy who loves adventure" it can easily include "saving the world" or "just stopping the injustice". And I'm not sure, but I don't think Sonic had any big character growth in the games.

Isn't the entire point of an origin story to show how a character turned out the way he/she turned out? Batman had an origin story...Superman had an origin story...Spider-man had an origin story...But with Sonic, I guess he was just born blue, fast and a hero...fascinating origin story I have to admit.

But if they have no interesting origin story to tell..what is the point of making the movie an origin story exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tarnish said:

Isn't the entire point of an origin story to show how a character turned out the way he/she turned out? Batman had an origin story...Superman had an origin story...Spider-man had an origin story...But with Sonic, I guess he was just born blue, fast and a hero...fascinating origin story I have to admit.

But if they have no interesting origin story to tell..what is the point of making the movie an origin story exactly?

I'm not the person who moans "It's Sonic movie about his origin, damn it! I don't want this!". I'm all for an origin story. (I'm sure I mentioned it in my previous posts too, maybe it got lost ^_^;) This type of story connects the past with the future. I meant to say - Sonic started as "developed" with not much to add. He still changed over the years, but if we look at the core and reasons why he is like this - we don't see many reasons for why.

Somebody said - "Sonic is just good and Eggman is just evil, and this status is fine. No need for some past or background" - style.

I guess we all have our preferences. Somebody is okay with Sonic just being pure good, somebody else would like to see how his path as a hero started. The problem is, no matter how good something is, people will still bash it when it doesn't reflect their vision perfectly.

I don't know if Dr. Robotnik's official past is original or interesting, but we have it as something to work with.

The Sonic Bible mentions about Sonic being orphan and raised by animals (I guess by the ones he is saving in games). The question is - How he turned into an orphan? If this movie has Sonic as an orphan, will we see why? It could be interesting. If he lost his parents to injustice, it shows more about his determination to help than just helping for the sake of being a good guy.

As it was mentioned, the movie has some character's growth moments, so let see how big and relevant to the story they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Witto150 said:

I'm not the person who moans "It's Sonic movie about his origin, damn it! I don't want this!". I'm all for an origin story. (I'm sure I mentioned it in my previous posts too, maybe it got lost ^_^;) This type of story connects the past with the future. I meant to say - Sonic started as "developed" with not much to add. He still changed over the years, but if we look at the core and reasons why he is like this - we don't see many reasons for why.

Somebody said - "Sonic is just good and Eggman is just evil, and this status is fine. No need for some past or background" - style.

I guess we all have our preferences. Somebody is okay with Sonic just being pure good, somebody else would like to see how his path as a hero started. The problem is, no matter how good something is, people will still bash it when it doesn't reflect their vision perfectly.

I don't know if Dr. Robotnik's official past is original or interesting, but we have it as something to work with.

The Sonic Bible mentions about Sonic being orphan and raised by animals (I guess by the ones he is saving in games). The question is - How he turned into an orphan? If this movie has Sonic as an orphan, will we see why? It could be interesting. If he lost his parents to injustice, it shows more about his determination to help than just helping for the sake of being a good guy.

As it was mentioned, the movie has some character's growth moments, so let see how big and relevant to the story they are.

As it stands so far, the movie is half-assing everything if you ask me:
- Wants to be a Sonic movie, but doesn't commits to even have the aesthetic of the games, going for the bare minimum of ties to the source material.
- Wants to be an origin story, but seems like it'll portray the characters as they have been for decades, aka without showing much 'origins' at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tarnish said:

Wants to be a Sonic movie, but doesn't commits to even have the aesthetic of the games, going for the bare minimum of ties to the source material.

How do we know from a few minutes? There is plenty of Easter Eggs. Do they not count? Why bother with them then? Sonic is like the wind, everchanging. If he wouldn't, we would have nothing but pixel games with classic Sonic, barely any story (only simple ones), and hardly any other cast except for the main core. After all, Sonic's got new friends after turning Modern where the 3D allowed for longer and more complex games with dialogues and voice acting.

Would it be good? Perhaps. But think of it this way - If people stayed the same, we would stay on the trees 😉 Everything changes. Sonic is a character that has to move forward and not by just running.

3 minutes ago, Tarnish said:

but seems like it'll portray the characters as they have been for decades,

As you said, "seems" doesn't equal "for sure". I read another comment from a person who saw an early screening and they said it was a very enjoyable ride. Is he telling the truth? Was there any early screening? Yes? No? What proofs we have? I guess just their word.

But if what they say is true, why are we worried? Yeah, 100 people can't guarantee 1 M will like it like them. But doesn't it show something?

Let's say, your sibling saw this early screening and told you it's a great movie. Would you trust them with the hatred around you and you being pessimistic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Witto150 said:

How do we know from a few minutes?

Are you kidding me right now? Just look at them. They're barely alike.

sonichh.jpg?ext=.jpg

It's pretty plain to see they haven't committed to any faithfulness to Sonic's aesthetic, in fact they've only really done the bare minimum required to convince somebody that they're they same character. Adding inconsequential easter eggs to it doesn't really make up for that - it's at best a bandaid designed to distract you from the fact that they could have done a lot better and are perfectly aware of the fact that they could.

1 hour ago, Witto150 said:

Sonic is like the wind, everchanging.

Just because a complete lack of consistency is expected from Sonic as a character (and frankly I'd argue whether even that is true) doesn't mean it's a particularly good model for developing any kind of entertainment media. You might see it as keeping a formula from going stale, but the truth is closer to keeping it from developing far enough to achieve actual greatness - the only thing this baseless rhetoric ever actually achieved was throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Witto150 said:

There is plenty of Easter Eggs. Do they not count? Why bother with them then?

You'll have to ask the creators why they thought using the source material, the thing the entire movie is supposedly based on, as Easters Eggs was a better choice than using the source material to it's fullest potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Witto150 said:

Sonic is like the wind, everchanging. If he wouldn't, we would have nothing but pixel games with classic Sonic, barely any story (only simple ones), and hardly any other cast except for the main core.

Why don't we just ask Sonic Team how constantly reinventing the wheel simply because they can works out.

No, people like consistency. People didn't just like Mania because it was Classic Sonic, they liked it because 1) It was good 2) It builds off a formula that's proven to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While a trailer under five minutes long can't convey an entire movie's contents, I can and will criticize it for not showing some of the best a movie has to offer--or if what we saw is the best, I don't care to see the worst!  At least one of the following is true: The movie is bad or the trailer is bad.  Whoever was in charge of this has very little grasp of what makes Sonic appealing to its core demographic, as evidenced by how we only get little glimpses of Robotnik looking like himself and never hear him called that in the trailer, and very little else of what's in the games.  I don't want to be told there are "Easter Eggs"; I want to be shown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Scritch the Cat said:

 I don't want to be told there are "Easter Eggs"; I want to be shown.

Easter eggs. That reminds me of Thunderbirds the live-action movie again. I remember making a post about it ages ago. There was an easter egg in it. In the TV show, close ups of a character pressing a button or pulling a trigger use live-action hands (I don't get how people are weirded out by that), but in the live-action film, there is one time a close up of a button being pushed was done with a puppet hand. That was eh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Scritch the Cat said:

I don't want to be told there are "Easter Eggs"; I want to be shown.

Can I just say claiming "BUT WE HAVE EASTER EGGS!" is not exactly the strongest answer to give to the "Why does this movie look absolutely nothing like the source material?" question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tarnish said:

Can I just say claiming "BUT WE HAVE EASTER EGGS!" is not exactly the strongest answer to give to the "Why does this movie look absolutely nothing like the source material?" question?

Agreed. They say easter eggs, do they?

Let's take bets on whether the word "egg" will appear in the film, one way or another. That would be an easter egg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paramount's marketing team really doesn't know what they are doing.

Back in December they tried to do the whole self depricating bit, by retweeting memes on the movie's twitter account. Then the account went dead for three months. Trailer, now dead again. Still lists November 2019 as the release date. Didn't even bother to retweet Fowler's announcement of a design change or the new release date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BaronGrackle said:

Agreed. They say easter eggs, do they?

Let's take bets on whether the word "egg" will appear in the film, one way or another. That would be an easter egg.

They could have an animal shelter scene or something where there's a fox and echidna in the background and be like "SEE THOSE? AREN'T THOSE THE BEST EASTER EGGS EVER?" for all we know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tarnish said:

They could have an animal shelter scene or something where there's a fox and echidna in the background and be like "SEE THOSE? AREN'T THOSE THE BEST EASTER EGGS EVER?" for all we know.

. . .

That would actually be pretty cool, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Tarnish said:

Isn't the entire point of an origin story to show how a character turned out the way he/she turned out? Batman had an origin story...Superman had an origin story...Spider-man had an origin story...But with Sonic, I guess he was just born blue, fast and a hero...fascinating origin story I have to admit.

But if they have no interesting origin story to tell..what is the point of making the movie an origin story exactly?

Well, that was a plus about Archie and Fleetway (and Underground). Despite the weird points they made (Sonic's dad is a robot!) the origin stories still exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an origin story, this film seems ill-equipped to establish the characters as they are in the games.  Robotnik/Eggman is supposed to have motives beyond just wanting to stop Sonic; it's really Sonic who's supposed to try to stop him.  The backstory they wrote, with Sonic having convenient world-warping abilities and electrical powers that cause EMP blasts, rests on factors that aren't even in the games.  They're taking things out that are near and dear to the brand identity, and adding things in that make it something else entirely; something with so much weight as to potentially hold it back from becoming what people want.

Oh, and before anyone says something like "Adaptations that change things up are valid; just look at Into the Spider-verse", do bear in mind the real circumstances behind that.  Both in graphic novels and movies, the more zany takes on the mythology were added only after the core version was well-established.  Before the first Raimi movie came out, Spider-Man may have been a broadly identifiable cultural icon, but I'm guessing most people didn't know his origin story or much about his enemies.  We got that and the short-lived "Amazing" reboot to retell his origin; only after those did they try to go wild with things like Peni Parker and Spider-Ham.  You need to do a conservative version of the story in any medium before you can do a subversive version in the same medium; that may not be an objective truth, but it is the way that series actually happened.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Blacklightning said:

Are you kidding me right now? Just look at them. They're barely alike.

  • Surprise!! => Sonic's fans hated Modern Sonic because green eyes and different blue shade. Everything else was pretty accurate. How so?
  • Beta Boom Sonic - "I like him" comments under the article. (he had completely different quills,  two eyes, completely clothed)
  • Boom Sonic - BURN IT! (Despite being like older Modern Sonic.)
  • Fans dress Sonic in clothes/dresses/skirts = AWESOME.
  • Sega gives Sonic simple scarf and sports tape used in the correct way (= adventure) = BURN IT!

And if your problem is human teeth, show me an official render where he doesn't have them. I tried to find one, and I think there is one. One where he had fangs, and I think it may be a recent one. I just can't find it now, or it was a fan render. But the question is then - Why so many of them show Sonic with either Mono-Tooth (cartoons, simplicity, and save-time mechanism) or human teeth base. The teeth base is more often connected with SA promo anime-art and Sonic X. Mono-tooth always meant human teeth placeholder.

Sonic_teeth.png.daf5513474feba23fd0d9e21a6b18ab0.png

These renders are from Sonic and Secret rings (detail) and the other is from Super Smash Brosh Brawl. The only hedgehog with visible fangs is Shadow and Werehog. Even Silver had a human-teeth base (Sonic Rivals). So it's not baseless to say Sonic has human-like teeth. I'll admit some tinkering could be done. And the saddest thing is when you want to bash this movie, you always go and use one certain scene. I soooo wonder which one it is...

And real hedgehog's teeth:

hedgehog.png.f41fe332ca92b652249e9cf60d3404fe.png

So yeah, human-style sure is a bad choice. I guess they should go with a lot of fangs.

I heard Sonic looked weird in Sonic 06 because he was too cartoony among real-life people. And the Movie isn't the Game. What works in games, doesn't (or may not) work in a movie. I'm sure there is a lot of Games' adapted into TV series where the game aspects are so heavy it makes little to no sense. The approach here is if Sonic was real, how he would look? I'm sure placing fur-like texture is "all that needs to be done".

Hey, wait! People draw Sonic as real hedgehog = Other fans: CUTE! Strange, isn't it? Isn't real hedgehog (two-eyed, no green eyes, no mono-tooh, no gloves, no red sneakers) SOOOOO FAR from Sonic's design?

To sum it up - You don't like it. Okay. Be civil about it. Don't go bashing it. See what is okay, and what not. Present your opinion in a civil way. Even the "so-called trash design" has some work behind it. I don't like Mario, and I don't go how ten-rated human-like he is. I let people enjoy him for what he is. Do the same 😉

PS. Sorry, if I sound aggressive. I tried not to ^_^;

18 hours ago, Diogenes said:

Oh come the fuck on. You don't have to choose between "change nothing" and "change everything every time forever". You can't just elevate "change" as some fundamental positive and use that to brush off any criticism of what the changes actually are.

Well, if the criticism would be less "Bleh - green eyes! Burn it!" or "Blue arms - YOU KILLED SONIC", I would think about Sonic's fandom "critique" in a more positive way. How's that a criticism? Criticisms about being civil and say what you like and dislike. If you like nothing, say it "I don't like how it looks" no "BURN IT!". But it may be just me, being polite and trying to remain polite no matter what.

And then seeing "USE THIS DESIGN! IT'S MUCH BETTER" and it's porno Sonic with F sized boobs or some other insulting design... So much for the feedback.

TSR teased the new mechanic - BAAAD shouted a large chunk of fanbase way before they had a chance to see it in the action.

It's sad asking on FB if TSR is a good game since you heard it's bad, and many comments start with "Ignore it. It's just fanbase acting toxic as usual.".

It seems to me more people call for "change nothing", so it suggests they don't want anything new at all. Some ask for new features like Sonic using guns, or a more serious story. Sega does their best and gets hatred - for listening to fans. Sweet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.