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

[Tara]

I've mentioned in this thread before that I agree with the general philosophy of designing the movie with more than just the core fanbase in mind, if for no other reason than the fact that making an esoteric work that is overwrought with lore and internal references that only a niche population will understand has a tendency to lead to stilted writing and unsatisfying buildup and payoff.  I think if you make a good film, both fans and people who have never even heard of Sonic will enjoy it because it will have all the proper buildup and resolution that a good movie tends to have.  "Pleasing the fans" and "pleasing general audiences" are really not a mutually exclusive goal.

But that doesn't mean you need to focus group test it to the point of being an abominable mess that overflows with cliche writing, vapid dialogue, and generic set pieces.  That's not even mentioning the horrible design.  What the recent news indicates is that they essentially did just that, which is what we've been saying since the inception of this threasd is a bad thing that leads to bad movies.  Like even ignoring the various problems with this type of focus group testing that have been documented for ages, I don't understand why there are people in this thread who see "they made something commercially viable at the expense of making an actually enjoyable movie" as something that we're supposed to laud them for?

And then they make statements like "people liked the TMNT and Transformers designs" not realizing that, like, no.  People didn't.  Perhaps they think people did because they can somehow ignore the fact that both those films were heavily marketed to put it mildly.  Like, they put adverts for those films on everything.  TV and radio commercials, billboards, YouTube ads, toy lines, fast food toy lines, everywhere.  If you have a budget for that kind of mass marketing, a high turnout is almost inevitable.  And on a personal note, I've never met one single solitary person, even people that liked TMNT 2014, would have said "Yeah, I like it because the design is more realistic and appeals to me."  Like, for the most part, I see people who like it in spite of the designs.  And even that is a small number.

[Lord-Dreamerz]

4 hours ago, Gamecuber64 said:

The dialect and tone in the Sonic games would not work in a feature length theatrical film, and they definitely NEED to aim at general audiences, otherwise it would fail both critically and in box office.

Video game movies are essentially reboots or remakes.

Considering video game movies are infamous for typically being awful flops DESPITE all the butchering the outsourced teams do for what they assume will sell better to a general public... which clearly shows most video game movies are only a example of how to do it WRONG. You are using the reckless train of thought that if something has always been done a certain way then that must be the correct way... which is a bad way to think when making a good product. On another note, what exactly about the Sonic games doesn't translate into a good movie? I notice the people arguing about this normally never give good examples outside of saying "It just doesn't work!" 100 times. What exactly about a story of a hero having to travel across funky dangerous locations on a adventure trying to stop some villain from taking over the world while meeting colorful interesting side characters along the way actually doesn't work as a movie? especially considering there is tons of movies just like that already.

[Jango]

A full on Sonic movie could easily work, period. Just look at Sonic Mania Adventures and Team Sonic Racing Overdrive as recent examples. 90 minutes of something of that quality? Heck yeah. When you get people that know what they're doing, you can make great things. Who would've guessed, right? Dare I say some people can even make a great Sonic game on their first try :V

But when you have a bunch of old dinossaurs running a company, well... You get gremlin Sonic, because "-that's realistic if I said so".

[Gamecuber64]

15 minutes ago, Lord-Dreamerz said:

Considering video game movies are infamous for typically being awful flops DESPITE all the butchering the outsourced teams do for what they assume will sell better to a general public. Clearly most video game movies are only a example of how to do it WRONG. You are using the reckless train of thought that if something has always been done a certain way then that must be the correct way... which is a bad way to think when making a good product. On another note, what exactly about the Sonic games doesn't translate into a good movie? I notice the people arguing about this normally never give good examples outside of saying "It just doesn't work!" 100 times.

You're forgetting that anime films based on video games exist too. They have proven that adaptations based on games can work. America is pretty bad at it (despite Detective Pikachu which was at best, alright).

 

And yeah, I believe it couldn't work. Maybe a Boom adaptation could work. Maybe Satam. But definitely not that.

The reason why I say a film staying insanely true to the games is because of what Hollywood has done with that concept. For example, Ratchet & Clank. A film that had a huge portion of people involved with the video games couldn't do it right. And that was an animated film. Like I said, video game movies are basically remakes/reboots of a story that was already done.

 

I love the characters in these games, but let's face it. Sonic Adventure, Adventure 2, and Heroes have a lot of cheesy dialogue that wouldn't fit into a film. Can you imagine lines like "Let's show them the true power of teamwork" in a theatrical film aimed at general audiences? They would react unfavorable.

As for the more modern games, Colors and Lost World have a lot of bad jokes. They've been criticized for that aspect before. In fact a lot of Sonic's games have for years.

[Lord-Dreamerz]

30 minutes ago, Gamecuber64 said:

Ratchet & Clank.

Use a different example. I see people throw that single flop game movie example around all the time which alone is not good proof of anything, many things can go wrong when selling a movie, and the Ratchet & Clank movie is not proof that somewhat sticking close to the source material will automatically fail.

I also see tons of general target movies with awful cheesy dialogue all the time. Regardless that part doesn't even really matter because nobody is asking for the childish dialogue/jokes to be put into a Sonic movie when asking for it to stick closer to the games.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

17 minutes ago, Gamecuber64 said:

You're forgetting that anime films based on video games too. They have proven that adaptations based on games can work. America is pretty bad at it (despite Detective Pikachu which was at best, alright).

 

And yeah, I believe it couldn't work. Maybe a Boom adaptation could work. Maybe Satam. But definitely not that.

The reason why I say a film staying insanely true to the games is because of what Hollywood has done with that concept. For example, Ratchet & Clank. A film that had a huge portion of people involved with the video games couldn't do it right. And that was an animated film. Like I said, video game movies are basically remakes/reboots of a story that was already done.

 

I love the characters in these games, but let's face it. Sonic Adventure, Adventure 2, and Heroes have a lot of cheesy dialogue that wouldn't fit into a film. Can you imagine lines like "Let's show them the true power of teamwork" in a theatrical film aimed at general audiences? They would react unfavorable.

As for the more modern games, Colors and Lost World have a lot of bad jokes. They've been criticized for that aspect before. In fact a lot of Sonic's games have for years.

Ratchet & Clank is a terrible example to bring up because that appealed to virtually no one, and I say that as someone who loves the series and saw it Day 1 over fucking Captain America Civil War.

Ratchet & Clank was not only really badly marketed, with barely any buzz whatsoever, but it had the exact same problem as being brought up here. Instead of having some inkling about why the series is beloved and unique in the first place, they felt the need to walk in and change it to better appeal to a general audience, except fucking oops, now it appeals to no one.

The movie was originally hyped up because they had Insomniac backing them, and the actual legit writer of the games making a script for a reboot designed to introduce newcomers while still engaging older fans, and they still had no faith in it and changed it to the point it was bad. The original script was completely different before being rewritten by someone else who filled it entirely with cliches, likely rewrote Ratchet’s dynamic to wide eyed dreamer, and caused the titular duo to not only have barely any interaction in the movie, despite this being their origin story, but caused the movie to be more about Qwark than anything.

The movie is not a good representation of the games. The humour and unique tone was sanitised, the unique, and often quirky cast ended up mostly replaced with new characters who had boring personalities, and literally just existed as an excuse for a celebrity to star, the characters’ personalities ended up massively shifted, Ratchet lost the edge and determination he had, as well as the many badass moments he has in the games, and even his independence simply to make him be a sidekick to Qwark for the majority of it.

Clank does nothing of value, has none of the humour of his original self, and also loses his role because he’s never around Ratchet much. Drek is completely wrong, going from threatening ruthless cutthroat business tycoon to just “lol this guy is such a bad boss lawl”. Nefarious is shifted into generic evil scientist, to the point the movie itself feels the need to point it out as a recurring gag.

Literally the only saving grace was Qwark who had a character arc more developed than what he had in Ratchet 1, and even then, you could argue Ratchet 3 did it a lot better. That, and fair enough - a fairly good amount of in jokes aimed at fans of Ratchet and PlayStation in general. That’s it, nothing else. And while the tie in game is a incredibly good gameplay evolution of the series, the writing, story, and humour is as godawful as the movie, which is a cardinal sin for a series known so well for its fantastic sense of satire, story, and humour.

It literally had everything unique and interesting about Ratchet as a series sucked out and filled with cliched horse shit designed in a sad pathetic attempt to appeal to the general audience. On a bigger scale, because keep in mind, they had the actual creators and  lead writer of the series actively attempt to aid them with this reboot effort, and the studio still threw it in the bin for market tested bullshit that led to it becoming a generic kid movie.

All this to say that your attempt to claim Ratchet & Clank the movie was an accurate representation of the series is utterly wrong.

[Jango]

@Gamecuber64

All these examples are bad because:

The writing is awfull because Pontaff, no citation needed. And in the case of SA1, SA2 and Heroes, they're product of their time, so is the cheeseness. No movie writer has to use these kinds of lines to be 100% true to Sonic, unless they're remaking one of these games word by word, scene by scene, which obviously isn't the case.

Not to mention Ratchet and Clank flopped because they're nowhere near as well known as Sonic and the studio literally patched the PS4 game cutscenes together (or vice versa, I don't know, but they also got the wrong idea).

Why people assume a "full on Sonic movie" has to adapt one specific game? Just shows you're as lost as the Paramount folks. 

What's the right way to do it? You write a new story around the essence of these characters, worlds and elements, like Marvel does (most of the time). And sorry Paramount, but Sonic's essence isn't just: "a blue creature that runs fast". This fucking studio only wanted to use the license "Sonic", they don't give a fuck about the essence or anything. Any blue creature running fast was enough because they could slap a big ass "Sonic™" and people would bite it. But we are not the idiots they thought we were. They fixing the design deserves no praise. SEGA of America and the fans do. This could've been avoided ages ago. Everybody warned them. But no. DEM EXECS.

[Polkadi~☆]

If you cannot bring a property to film without staying true to the merits of it’s source material, then there is no point in doing so.

Out of touch execs are so sure of their own ideas, that they don’t realise that the ideas that came before can be proven to already work. Sonic has an iconic design that can even be recognised in silhouette by children, and carried SEGA to stardom through the 90s, making the idea of a redesign to be absurd. Yet, due to thinking that their ideas are absolute, they focus-tested the shit out of their special little design and got it out the door.

I hope the Paramount execs (and any execs in Hollywood for that matter) figure out that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Sure worked for Marvel.

 

16 minutes ago, Gamecuber64 said:

I love the characters in these games, but let's face it. Sonic Adventure, Adventure 2, and Heroes have a lot of cheesy dialogue that wouldn't fit into a film. Can you imagine lines like "Let's show them the true power of teamwork" in a theatrical film aimed at general audiences? They would react unfavorable.

The Fast and Furious franchise has nine films, and lots of cheesy dialogue. Many 80s action films live off of cheesy dialogue. Many classic films had some cheesy lines, but are none the worse for them.

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

I don't think anyone is asking for strict fidelity to the dialogue style of Sonic games, but rather to stick closer to the original premise, ideas, designs, characters, etc. of Sonic.

[SSF1991]

I just wanted Sonic to act like Sonic. I wanted to see those beautiful, colorful places in Sonic's world on the big screen. I wanted to see better writing. That's it. It doesn't take much to make a Sonic movie, well, Sonic. Sonic's world has tons of characters, lore, personality and places to build off of. Hell, imagine if the movie's plot had been the exact opposite of what it currently is. Instead of Sonic ending up in Tom's world, what if Tom ended up in Sonic's world? That has more much potential than the plot they have now. Because you can still keep that Sonic vibe, yet still make it just right for general audiences who may not be familiar with it. And even then, as Sonic's original movie design proved, going down an un-Sonic route can cause even general audiences to disapprove of the movie. There is absolutely nothing about this Sonic movie that feels like Sonic. Nothing.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Your movie is named and based after Sonic the Hedgehog, then I expect Sonic the fucking Hedgehog.

[CaptainRobo]

New render from the Japanese promo graphic.:

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

For once, it's the Japanese version that's more hardcore.

Anyway, looks nice.

[Tarnish]

On 11/30/2019 at 9:22 AM, SSF1991 said:

There is absolutely nothing about this Sonic movie that feels like Sonic. Nothing.

For some people shoving the character in whatever movie and slapping the Sonic branding on it is good enough.

[Gamecuber64]

If everything was exactly the same as it used to be, there'd be nothing to expand on or experiment with. Why adapt or reboot something if nothing's changed?

[Razule]

57 minutes ago, Gamecuber64 said:

If everything was exactly the same as it used to be, there'd be nothing to expand on or experiment with. Why adapt or reboot something if nothing's changed?

Why adapt something only to slap it on to some generic template of a story that's far removed from the source material?

[Jango]

On 11/30/2019 at 5:22 AM, SSF1991 said:

There is absolutely nothing about this Sonic movie that feels like Sonic. Nothing.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Your movie is named and based after Sonic the Hedgehog, then I expect Sonic the fucking Hedgehog.

I mean, I don't disagree, but, at least in the second trailer, we got closer to something more Sonic-y. The first trailer was a mess, it was anything but Sonic and should be forgotten.

Now the second trailer we got a pretty good looking Green Hill Zone, nods to actual Sonic music and the Ramones' song that suits Sonic muuuuuuuch better than... Gangster's Paradise... Not to mention all the cool references. This trailer has more energy, more style. I won't say they "nail'd", but damn, can Tyson work some miracles, right? I'm not feeling Sonic's personality yet, but, to be honest... That's pretty much how the recent games been portraiting him anyways... Dare I say he sounds and acts better than a bunch of those games writen by Pontaff.

But, OF COURSE, we're still getting the same old "fish out of water" plot where the cute hyperactive alien visitor has to be hidden in a bag, reacts to seeing the most mundane stuff for the first time (like a dog) and needs the help of a human that has no better things to do.

So yeah, not very Sonic-y. But at least... A little more than before...?

Also, look at this son of a bitch:

 

Now that's one good looking Sonic.

[CaptainRobo]

Full picture if anybody is curious.

[PeterPancake]

if I had my way, I'd make a movie that takes inspiration from SATAM and the Archie comics and tell a much more serious story. I feel like Sonic can be so much more than an Alvin and the Chipmunks-esque road trip comedy film. At least in the same league as modern CBMS. 

For one, a story with darker implications. Like totalitarianism and the loss of free will from Roboticization. Man vs. Nature. The value of liberty and the need to never stop moving no matter what. Sonic represents the spirit that drives life, the will to live and be free (from tyranny) while Robotnik represents control and man's corrupting of natural life through industrialism and pollution..

 

Sigh... Maybe one day..

 

I'm not getting the movie I wanted either but I hope at least that this movie can do some good for the Sonic franchise and give him the boost he needs in modern pop culture. I'm ready for a return to the Adventure-era of story-driven games myself. Forces I don't count

[Wittymations]

18 hours ago, PeterPancake said:

Sigh... Maybe one day..

While I'd be down, that's just unlikely to happen. Sonic, lately, has been focusing on the rather unfunny comedy stuff, in the cases of the latest titles (bar Forces, maybe? I really didn't bother with it once Infinite was revealed) and they also would probably prefer to step away from the darker stuff due to Shadow and 06 flopping. I mean, it's been over 10 years, and it still feels like they're apologizing. Again, Forces probably tried, but it didn't do well either.

Plus, comedy is easier to drag your kids to a cinema and watch. I imagine they feel they have a bigger audience there. I mean, keep it animated and kids would watch action adventure all day. But that's probably part of the comedy mindset.

But let's pretend they'd be willing: As for an Eggman ruled world similar to the Archie setting, I'd love that. Problem is, I don't feel that's best for a movie. Something where Eggman rules the planet would be a looooong story to tell with a lot of fights. Make it a series.

For a movie, you'd want it closer to SA2 in terms of pace and tone. It's a race for victory, with constant accomplishments and setbacks -- and some twists like "You thought you could trick me with that fake emerald." SA2 had some pretty decent pacing.

If you wanted to focus more on the protagonist, SA1's example is also decent. It constantly built up Chaos. You could have a build up for Eggman's planning there.

Getting off subject a tad.

If this film did well, it'd really just encourage more of the same cliche cartoony character in the real world trope that's been done I have no idea how many times. But this time it has Tails. Personally, I suspect it's going to do about as well as most other live-action/animation hybrids: Enough to make a profit, not enough to be noteworthy.

[Gamecuber64]

1 hour ago, Wittymations said:

If this film did well, it'd really just encourage more of the same cliche cartoony character in the real world trope that's been done I have no idea how many times. But this time it has Tails. Personally, I suspect it's going to do about as well as most other live-action/animation hybrids: Enough to make a profit, not enough to be noteworthy.

I predict that it won't be as bad as something like Alvin & The Chipmunks or The Smurfs (and the writers that it won't be anything like those two films), but will be a decent adaptation like Detective Pikachu, Bumblebee, and Peter Rabbit. Nothing spectacular like Ted or Roger Rabbit, but an above average movie. It might even be potentially slightly better than Detective Pikachu in terms of story and humor. That's impressive for an American video game movie.

[Wittymations]

31 minutes ago, Gamecuber64 said:

I predict that it won't be as bad as something like Alvin & The Chipmunks or The Smurfs (and the writers that it won't be anything like those two films), but will be a decent adaptation like Detective Pikachu, Bumblebee, and Peter Rabbit. Nothing spectacular like Ted or Roger Rabbit, but an above average movie. It might even be potentially slightly better than Detective Pikachu in terms of story and humor. That's impressive for an American video game movie.

 

Detective Pikachu was... interesting.

I guess I give it props for NOT focusing too much on the humans, but maybe it loses points for Pikachu's backstory when it was revealed near the end. Personally, I feel what REALLY sold Detective Pikachu was the spectacle of having all those Pokemon in real life.

That's probably a bit of double standard given we often go "ew, live action hybrid" buuuuut... I feel there's some difference between animated characters vs a whole species of animal. There's a difference between Sonic and a group of Bulbasaur, you see. Sonic, you gotta think about his personality, the way he presents himself. Meanwhile, Bulbasaur, you can't go too wrong just presenting them as an animal of some sort and really need to focus only on a few things -- like, are they a pack animal or loners? Predator or prey?

Storywise, I feel Detective Pikachu wasn't that great. Wasn't bad, but eh? It got pretty weird. But I haven't played any game past the first two gens, so maybe it's not as weird as I think.

[Almar]

Be Honest: What actually makes the movie Sonic any more interesting, compelling, or less of a bad character than the Sonic we have in the games currently?

[PeterPancake]

2 hours ago, Wittymations said:

While I'd be down, that's just unlikely to happen. Sonic, lately, has been focusing on the rather unfunny comedy stuff, in the cases of the latest titles (bar Forces, maybe? I really didn't bother with it once Infinite was revealed) and they also would probably prefer to step away from the darker stuff due to Shadow and 06 flopping. I mean, it's been over 10 years, and it still feels like they're apologizing. Again, Forces probably tried, but it didn't do well either.

Plus, comedy is easier to drag your kids to a cinema and watch. I imagine they feel they have a bigger audience there. I mean, keep it animated and kids would watch action adventure all day. But that's probably part of the comedy mindset.

But let's pretend they'd be willing: As for an Eggman ruled world similar to the Archie setting, I'd love that. Problem is, I don't feel that's best for a movie. Something where Eggman rules the planet would be a looooong story to tell with a lot of fights. Make it a series.

For a movie, you'd want it closer to SA2 in terms of pace and tone. It's a race for victory, with constant accomplishments and setbacks -- and some twists like "You thought you could trick me with that fake emerald." SA2 had some pretty decent pacing.

If you wanted to focus more on the protagonist, SA1's example is also decent. It constantly built up Chaos. You could have a build up for Eggman's planning there.

Getting off subject a tad.

If this film did well, it'd really just encourage more of the same cliche cartoony character in the real world trope that's been done I have no idea how many times. But this time it has Tails. Personally, I suspect it's going to do about as well as most other live-action/animation hybrids: Enough to make a profit, not enough to be noteworthy.

Well, you could establish some of that backstory in exposition. But you'd have to make sure the information is relayed to the audience in the least intrusive way possible.  If you're burrowing from Archie then you could streamline some elements of the backstory so make it easier digestible. 

 

For instance-- You could start the movie showing Sonic's father  and mother engaged in the Great War (Jules and Bernadette) with hundreds of other Mobians. Seemingly sacrificing their lives for Sonic. Before their death, we see them recording a message for Sonic (about what he is, taking inspiration from the movie, Sonic has special powers). > Cut to black. The movie could then jump ahead to a young Sonic with his uncle Chuck. Playing tag with a young Tails. We establish two things here: We see here that young Sonic is still discovering his power and that Tails is his best friend since early childhood. Heck, you could even make them brothers. Tails being an orphan like Sonic whom Uncle chuck brought in to raise. 

 

Maybe Chuck warns Sonic not to go into the forbidden Zone (for good reason) they go being dumb kids and as they are discovered by some guards, we get our second action sequence and our first taste of what Sonic can REALLY do as he accidently goes super sonic speed for the first time in a desperate attempt to escape the Robots (Tails in arms). They barely make it back home, Chuck scolds a crying Sonic and we jump ahead 5 years later to a 15 year old Sonic doing some immature, rebellious thing. Like maybe stealing some rings from a vendor and running from the guards. Something to establish Sonic's personality more firmly and also show the "Before" picture before his character arc...  Mudhoney's 'Touch Me I'm Sick' would be a good tone establisher for this sequence

To summarize, Chuck is captured, Sonic and Tails are homeless orphans again and they are taken to whatver Mobius' equivalent to a foster care system is where they meet Amy Rose. They escape. We now have introduced Amy and given Sonic his dramatic need in the story -- to rescue Uncle Chuck. This need will eventually turn into needing to save the world from Robotnik as he discovers who he truly is over the course of the movie (We meet his roboticized parents in an emotional revelation to Sonic)

Just some ideas I had

[Jango]

29 minutes ago, Almar said:

Be Honest: What actually makes the movie Sonic any more interesting, compelling, or less of a bad character than the Sonic we have in the games currently?

 

Writing, direction and voice acting. It works for both games and movies. The character will act accordingly to what is writen in the script and the animation director will follow the voice acting and tone of the scene. Is that simple. What could make movie Sonic more interesting than game Sonic is the writing. The voice actor will have to act to whatever material the writers gave him. If the scene has Sonic and Tom going to a bar to play dards, that's the stuff they (the VA and the animators) will have to work with. Since Sonic actually looks like Sonic now, the comparison people could be making is whether or not they like Roger Craig's take better than Ben Schwartz's, and to be fully honest, I find myself kinda tired of Roger.

If we're talking about animation, I'd say the movie looks a hell of a lot better than the latest game, Sonic Forces. It's not as good as Sonic Unleashed tho', in my opinion.

[CaptainRobo]

Check this out!