Jump to content
Badnik Mechanic

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Jango said:

Well, yeah, realistic live actions are in right now, but they could've done without massacrating the poor creature, I mean, look at Detective Pikachu and the design Tyson helped to create. Not to mention, Sonic's design, pretty much like Pikachu's, is kinda of universal, his classic form at least. Simple colors and shapes. Easy-peasy. But no. They had to put it in a blender before rendering... I really would LOVE to hear about the """""""""creative"""""""""" process of that first design. How did they got to that. I don't need nor want to see the whole movie with the old design like Yuji Naka (lol why?), but at least know the story behind it would be... Interesting.

Exactly. I'm only trying to explain their choices, not saying that they were good choices. The were bad choices.

sonic-live-action-movie.jpg

Very bad choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2019 at 10:45 AM, PeterPancake said:

And this is what I've been trying to communicate all along. It's crazy how Paramount's rationale is EXACTLY what I've been saying it would be for the past 2 years.

 

This movie was made to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. The average schmoe who played Sonic when he was younger and the kids and family audiences are the main demographics and they are the ones who will carry the box-office. Sonic fans make up such a tiny percentage of whom is going to see the movie and Paramount was under the impression that most of them would see it regardless. What happened though, waa that the targeted demographic rejected Sonics design so forcefully that it spooked the execs into bringing him back to the little blue furball that we all know and love. 

 

This Is what they do, this is how their minds work. They wanted to appeal to the general audience, they rejected the movie forcing them to change 

And we've been arguing for the past two years that it's a BAD rationale.  I'm not sure what you think this changes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's bad that Sonic fans are a tiny percentage of the target audience in all honesty. I've had that mindset since they announced the movie. It surprises me when people say they want a full on Sonic movie that feels exactly like the original property (I'm not talking about the design of the character). 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gamecuber64 said:

I don't think it's bad that Sonic fans are a tiny percentage of the target audience in all honesty. I've had that mindset since they announced the movie. It surprises me when people say they want a full on Sonic movie that feels exactly like the original property (I'm not talking about the design of the character). 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.

How on earth does this translate into giving Sonic a filthy redesign?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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   1 member

×
×
  • 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.