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

[Tarnish]

2 hours ago, Alexios31 said:

Some people are hellbent on wanting this movie to fail. It's rather sad.

I think it's equally as sad that some people are hellbent on wanting this movie to succeed. Just because it's Sonic. Not because it looks like a good movie.

[Almar]

 No one has demonstrated how this movie will be actually better than the Sonic OVA with Shut Up Tails and Sara.

[Gamecuber64]

4 hours ago, Tarnish said:

I think it's equally as sad that some people are hellbent on wanting this movie to succeed. Just because it's Sonic. Not because it looks like a good movie.

No. As a critic, I don't want any film to fail, and I don't want this movie to do bad either. Not necessarily because it is a Sonic The Hedgehog movie. Why would you want any movie to be bad? Isn't it better that we actually have a good Teen Titans GO! movie? Isn't it pleasantly surprising that the live action Dora movie is actually good? A trailer doesn't necessarily represent an entire movie. I wasn't particularly fond of the trailer, but I'm still keeping an open mind about it. The fact that they were willing to delay the movie to redesign the character shows that genuine effort was put into this.

 

And again, I guarantee that if this movie was entirely animated and Sonic's design was never weird looking, but everything about the plot was kept the same, suddenly, automatically, more people on this thread would magically think that it looks good. But the fact that it's live action, everyone's freaking out.

[Tarnish]

19 hours ago, Gamecuber64 said:

No. As a critic, I don't want any film to fail, and I don't want this movie to do bad either. Not necessarily because it is a Sonic The Hedgehog movie. Why would you want any movie to be bad? Isn't it better that we actually have a good Teen Titans GO! movie? Isn't it pleasantly surprising that the live action Dora movie is actually good? A trailer doesn't necessarily represent an entire movie. I wasn't particularly fond of the trailer, but I'm still keeping an open mind about it. The fact that they were willing to delay the movie to redesign the character shows that genuine effort was put into this.

 

And again, I guarantee that if this movie was entirely animated and Sonic's design was never weird looking, but everything about the plot was kept the same, suddenly, automatically, more people on this thread would magically think that it looks good. But the fact that it's live action, everyone's freaking out.

Let's see, where to begin. Maybe you don't want any movie to fail, but I do. I want BAD movies to fail to discourage studios from making more bad movies. Because if you're rewarding crap movies, don't be surprised you get more and more crap movies down the line.

And obviously, I don't want any movie to be bad. What I want is bad movies to fail for the reason I stated above.

A trailer might not represent an entire movie, but then I would call that a bad trailer, since I'm supposed to make my decision whether a movie is for me or not and thus deserves my money or not based on trailers. They can say and write about a movie all they want, but at the end of the day, the trailers are what represents a movie the best, being small slices from the actual movie itself.

The reason for delaying the movie could also simply be the studio worrying about its bottom line and thinking spending a bit more on the movie now will yield more profit. Genuine effort for me would have been never allowing that Sonic design past the concept stage.

"If this movie was entirely animated and Sonic's design was never weird looking, but everything about the plot was kept the same, suddenly, automatically, more people on this thread would magically think that it looks good." Yes, because at least it would LOOK GOOD. It would solve one of it's biggest issues (for me anyway), which is it wouldn't be a dumb live action + CGI mix. It still might NOT BE A GOOD MOVIE, but at least on the surface level it would LOOK GOOD, instead of looking bland (when Sonic is not on screen) or straight up hideous (when Sonic is on screen). While visuals are not everything, they are still an important element of movies.

[Plasme]

I think it's more that a live action Sonic movie is just such an awful idea conceptually. It could be good, but that trailer isn't a promising start, even with the redesigned Sonic changing its most notorious aspect.

[Diogenes]

1 hour ago, Gamecuber64 said:

Why would you want any movie to be bad?

It's not about wanting the movie to be bad, it's about expecting that it will be based on what we know of it, and not wanting a bad movie to succeed, because that encourages them to create more bad movies. We'd all be happier if we could confidently put our money towards a movie we were sure was going to be worth watching, but we can't will that movie into existence just by wanting it.

[Indigo Rush]

I say this as someone who is now going to sit through the film: fixing the design is not going to fix the entire movie. It makes it less disgusting to look at, and it makes it more marketable since we'll have an actual representation of Sonic to look at. But this doesn't change the fact that we're dealing with a CGI Live Action - Video Game Movie hybrid (a double curse, really) featuring a franchise icon from a series that's not exactly known for being story heavy. Anyone reserves the right to just... not see it anyway. Y'know, I can sort of understand how it's perceived that people who were asking for the design to be fixed  are "spoiled brats" for still not seeing it even after they fixed it, but that's not really the case. The case is that a lot of fans who were upset with the design were also not interested in a live action Sonic Movie to begin with. I certainly wasn't.

No one is obligated to see it. It's not a matter of wanting it to fail, it's a matter of expecting it to fail, because the entire premise indicates that the outlook is grim. I'm going to see it, yes, but not because I expect it to be good, nor because I expect it to be hilariously bad. I'm a Sonic fan. It's the Sonic Movie. They removed that eldritch blue demon in favor of an actual Sonic. I'm going to see it to keep up with the discussion. That's my reason for seeing it, and I don't have to justify it any more than someone who doesn't want to see it has to. It looks like it's going to be average at best. I'd like to be proven wrong, but I don't expect to. That's all I have to say about that.

[Sonicka]

13 hours ago, CaptainRobo said:

Found this with the tan arms.:

  Hide contents

Source: https://twitter.com/SonicpoX/status/1192125801128431617

 

Yeah... they got something right at least. I’m all for the full on original classic look, but in the fuzzy furry redesign, the blue arms was definitely the right choice. 

[Tarnish]

9 minutes ago, Son-icka said:

Yeah... they got something right at least. I’m all for the full on original classic look, but in the fuzzy furry redesign, the blue arms was definitely the right choice.

I just don't see how that's the case.

[Indigo Rush]

So there are some visual design reasons for the skin-colored arms, mainly to help them stand out from the body on 16 bit hardware. That said, blue arms are not inherently wrong in theory, aside from the fact that it's contrary to the established design. That should be enough to shoot down any reason to do it any other way, but that aside, it's a matter of personal preference. Most other Sonic characters (Tails, Knuckles, Shadow, Silver, etc) don't follow that design principle, so I can understand why someone would prefer it. 

[Diogenes]

I wouldn't say blue arms are the right choice here, but looking at it, I am starting to think the tan arms work better with his usual stylized anatomy, with the tube-arms more ambiguously connected to the body, compared to somewhat more realistic anatomy and the color being the only thing clearly separating them.

[Sonic Fan J]

9 hours ago, Alexios31 said:

Some people are hellbent on wanting this movie to fail. It's rather sad.

So maybe it's just the timing, but seeing as this was the first post after I made my little rant I feel the need to defend myself a little. Especially in light of eth following discussion.

At no point in my rant did I say I wanted the movie to fail. I was stating that to me I found it absurd that fixing one problem of what I find many in an unappealing film was reason for me to spend my money to go see the movie. If my one ticket is the difference between this movie succeeding or failing then that should already speak to the problems that this movie has. Regardless, if you find the movie being unappealing to me and me discussing that in a thread meant to discuss the movie as being me wanting the movie the fail then I hope this serves as a correction to that.

As for why I keep popping into a thread about a part of the IP that I find unappealing; well, it's still Sonic and the most talked about thing Sonic related at the moment. That, and I have a very hard time ignoring the bolded text on the topic list telling me that there are new posts in a thread. Page one for me has no bold text before I log off if I can help it and that results in me getting into conversations when I see things said that interest me both positively and negatively.

Now then, getting back on topic, and fairly cynically too boot...

2 hours ago, Gamecuber64 said:

And again, I guarantee that if this movie was entirely animated and Sonic's design was never weird looking, but everything about the plot was kept the same, suddenly, automatically, more people on this thread would magically think that it looks good. But the fact that it's live action, everyone's freaking out.

I've been a Sonic fan since 1991 and being animated, hand draw or otherwise, in it's entirety has never been what decides if I like something or not. I didn't care for SatAM or AoStH, Sonic X annoyed me too much with Chris Thorndyke undermining nigh everything and everyone, and I can't even watch BOOM! without getting extremely irritated. This is despite them all being singular mediums, all animation at that. So no, if a movie about alien Sonic who must follow non-alien design philosophies(?) meeting small town USA cop, Tom, was all hand drawn or all CG it still would not appeal to me. Would I question the medium and design philosophy? More likely than not no, but the story and setting is still wrong to me.

Despite being a USA citizen, born and raised (bar three years in my earliest childhood spent in England) I somehow still managed to settle on the image of Sonic being a globetrotting adventurer not unlike Indiana Jones. The freedom fighter, superhero, and Bugs Bunny like interpretations never stuck for me. To me, Sonic was the most famous hedgehog in the world for his reputation as an adventurer long before he ever met Eggman (which according to the Japanese manual of the original game also happened long before Sonic 1), yet this story throws that out to make Sonic whatever it is this film is trying to make him with Eggman (who strangely in the first trailer was presented as the hero the USA needs to save it from the chaos caused by the devilish alien) being the genesis to him becoming a hero with no hint of his love of adventure anywhere. It's not just wrong to me, but it also strips Sonic of any personal agency. He's a hero because he has to be, not because he wants to be and it is Tom and Eggman who will push him down that road. This character who represents freedom has no personal agency in this plot as it has been presented thus far and that is supposed to appeal to me with how I see the character and franchise. No, it just doesn't work that way. Heck, that is even why I've been getting annoyed with the IDW comic run so far; no adventuring or Sonic's love of adventure on display.

So I guess just to wrap this up, no, not even the novelty of seeing Sonic on the big screen is enough for me. Even growing up the only time I wanted to see a Sonic movie was when I saw this

And just the thumbnail alone should tell you how completely different these two "movies" are from each other.

All that said now, sure I find the movie unappealing, but I'll still be popping into this thread regularly and adding my thoughts if I feel I should.

[Sonicka]

1 hour ago, Tarnish said:

I just don't see how that's the case.

Indigo Rush said it best. It’s probably also just my preference but on this design I feel it frames Sonic much better visually.

If they had just copy pasted the CG model from the games into the film and made his arms blue I’d feel very differently about it.

[Tara]

5 hours ago, Gamecuber64 said:

And again, I guarantee that if this movie was entirely animated and Sonic's design was never weird looking, but everything about the plot was kept the same, suddenly, automatically, more people on this thread would magically think that it looks good.

(citation needed)

[Sean]

So what do you guys make of Sonic Underground? Are people who wrote it off due to it not being anything remotely like Sonic not giving it a fair shake, because it dared to set out and do its own thing divorced from any other previous incarnation? Why is it okay to hate Sonic Underground but not this movie

5 hours ago, Gamecuber64 said:

And again, I guarantee that if this movie was entirely animated and Sonic's design was never weird looking, but everything about the plot was kept the same, suddenly, automatically, more people on this thread would magically think that it looks good. But the fact that it's live action, everyone's freaking out.

Sonic Underground made Sonic's design more accurate to his original JP one (without the mohawk) compared to AoStH and SatAM, and people still think it's the worst of the DiC cartoons by a country lightyear.

The design doesn't mean shit.

[Celestia]

5 hours ago, Gamecuber64 said:

And again, I guarantee that if this movie was entirely animated and Sonic's design was never weird looking, but everything about the plot was kept the same, suddenly, automatically, more people on this thread would magically think that it looks good.

Well, yes, it would at the very least "look" good, in the literal sense, eh?

Everything about this movie even aside from Sonic's design does not appeal to me, and I suspect I--and a lot of people--would still feel that way. The design happened to be THE most immediate problem, but people aren't exactly wowed by the writing or anything either.

[Tornado]

Lol people in this thread implying we shouldn't hope something fails if we hate it.

[Plasme]

Do we really need four moderators dunking on one guy in a row? I've been on this forum for a few years now and the moderation has usually been pretty good, but it's gotten a bit out of hand lately. I've seen this kind of thing a lot and its hardly professional.

[StaticMania]

All 4?

It only looked like 2 were doing something like that.

But whatever.

[Tara]

5 minutes ago, Plasme said:

Do we really need four moderators dunking on one guy in a row? I've been on this forum for a few years now and the moderation has usually been pretty good, but it's gotten a bit out of hand lately. I've seen this kind of thing a lot and its hardly professional.

Lol, I knew someone would bring this up when I saw the others had posted.  None of us were "dunking" on him.  We expressed our disagreement, just as anyone else is welcome to.  While I do get that seeing four mods post in a row does give off a certain impression, I also think it's a bit silly that we should have to consider whether or not a mod has previously posted before we're allowed to use this thread to say what we were already planning on saying.

[Celestia]

34 minutes ago, Plasme said:

Do we really need four moderators dunking on one guy in a row? I've been on this forum for a few years now and the moderation has usually been pretty good, but it's gotten a bit out of hand lately. I've seen this kind of thing a lot and its hardly professional.

Did you know moderators are in fact also capable of having opinions and can take part in discussions? People complain when we don't "post normally" too so there's no "winning" I guess, but c'mon.

(I also legitimately didn't see Tara and Sean had already replied, and Tara even said essentially what I did in fewer words. But even if I had I might have decided to say something anyway to support that point and get my thoughts out there. /shrug)

31 minutes ago, StaticMania said:

All 4?

It only looked like 2 were doing something like that.

But whatever.

Oh shit am I one of them

[StaticMania]

1 minute ago, Celestia said:

Did you know moderators are in fact also capable of having opinions and can take part in discussions? People complain when we don't do that too so there's no "winning" I guess, but c'mon.

Oh shit am I one of them

Was yours that harsh? I didn't really read it that way...but I might've skimmed it.

[Tornado]

13 hours ago, Plasme said:

Do we really need four moderators dunking on one guy in a row? I've been on this forum for a few years now and the moderation has usually been pretty good, but it's gotten a bit out of hand lately. I've seen this kind of thing a lot and its hardly professional.

I know this isn't the first time that you've tried to flip the "moderators should be moderators only and not express an opinion that makes someone feel bad BECUZ VER UMPROFESHUNAL" card, so I'll respond to this the way I'm pretty sure I did the last time:

Bite me. 

 

 

 

We get enough shit from members for not engaging the community unless someone is breaking a rule. I'm not going to entertain "moderators expressing an opinion as part of the community in succession is a conspiracy to shun members from posting their opinions when they don't like them." Especially when I wasn't even responding to the same person Celestia, Akito and Sean were.

[Almar]

3 hours ago, Sonic Fan J said:

Despite being a USA citizen, born and raised (bar three years in my earliest childhood spent in England) I somehow still managed to settle on the image of Sonic being a globetrotting adventurer not unlike Indiana Jones. The freedom fighter, superhero, and Bugs Bunny like interpretations never stuck for me. To me, Sonic was the most famous hedgehog in the world for his reputation as an adventurer long before he ever met Eggman (which according to the Japanese manual of the original game also happened long before Sonic 1), yet this story throws that out to make Sonic whatever it is this film is trying to make him with Eggman (who strangely in the first trailer was presented as the hero the USA needs to save it from the chaos caused by the devilish alien) being the genesis to him becoming a hero with no hint of his love of adventure anywhere. It's not just wrong to me, but it also strips Sonic of any personal agency. He's a hero because he has to be, not because he wants to be and it is Tom and Eggman who will push him down that road. This character who represents freedom has no personal agency in this plot as it has been presented thus far and that is supposed to appeal to me with how I see the character and franchise. No, it just doesn't work that way. Heck, that is even why I've been getting annoyed with the IDW comic run so far; no adventuring or Sonic's love of adventure on display.

So I guess just to wrap this up, no, not even the novelty of seeing Sonic on the big screen is enough for me. Even growing up the only time I wanted to see a Sonic movie was when I saw this

And just the thumbnail alone should tell you how completely different these two "movies" are from each other.

All that said now, sure I find the movie unappealing, but I'll still be popping into this thread regularly and adding my thoughts if I feel I should.

I already posted on this so I'll do it again: Either you see the Sonic as established by his builders as a solid foundation for a world or you don't. I have the impression this movie's apologists don't.

[Indigo Rush]

47 minutes ago, Plasme said:

Do we really need four moderators dunking on one guy in a row? I've been on this forum for a few years now and the moderation has usually been pretty good, but it's gotten a bit out of hand lately. I've seen this kind of thing a lot and its hardly professional.

It's probably because the post in question is a baseless accusation that a lot of people have a problem with. The moderator badge doesn't make a difference unless they're threatening a strike or a ban of some sort, which they aren't. They're allowed to express their opinion and correct misinformation just like the rest of us.

EDIT: while I'm mad about it:

It's been getting "out of hand lately" because the movie discussion has cast a rather wide net and reeled in a lot of people who's sole intent is to blindly defend the movie at all costs, and we're all sick of the shallow arguments and spammy "golly, I sure can't wait for this excellent film to release," "I'll literally die if the trailer doesn't release in the next 3 seconds," "y'all are a bunch of meanies for not liking this and explaining why" drivel. It's obnoxious at this point. I can't imagine the amount of self-restraint a moderator has to not just delete it all at this point. It detracts from actual discussion which is a rarity in this thread.

We're all just fed up.