Jump to content
Badnik Mechanic

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

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Almar said:

Feh. Not impressed by aping nostalgia. Especially when it's apparent that movie makers either don't get Sonic as he was envisioned by Naka and Co. or value him.

Sonic's image was more than just something that was envisioned by Naka and Sonic Team. America had a hand in his conception as well, but I see your overall point. Sure, Sonic can be a funny, energetic guy, but ... that could essentially be any character. Thats not what SEGA marketed him as and the people with the disposable income to play his games remember him for. A lot of his most crucial,  most defining characteristics of his character seem largely .... ignored. Like, for example, Sonic isn't the type to just run away from home just because people are interested in his powers. If people harass him for that, he's the type to fight back. It'd be one thing if the story was depicting how Sonic gradually developed his core characteristics throughout the story. How perhaps Sonic initially WAS someone who ran away and how that effected the world, his life and people around him and how he had to grow from that to the person we're supposed to know him as. And I'm open to being proven wrong, but... I'm not feeling like thats where this movie's headed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Myst said:

Eh. Personally I hope 'Friends' is just used in the trailer and isn't in the movie itself. I want to hear Green Hill Zone or some other Genesis tune from the 90's playing in the background to get my nostalgia going.

I'm hoping we get to hear the full version of the chill Green Hill Zone remix we heard at the start of the second trailer (specifically the part where he gets ready to play baseball)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Almar said:

You're describing the overreaction that Sonic as a character went through in response to the backlash against the Adventure Era. It's obvious that the direction the franchise has been going through is ultimately one big apology for games like Shadow the Hedgehog with their plots and non-Eggman human characters like Elise. Hence Two Worlds (an excuse to write out non-Eggman humans).

 

5 hours ago, Rosaleia said:

Sonic's image was more than just something that was envisioned by Naka and Sonic Team. America had a hand in his conception as well, but I see your overall point. Sure, Sonic can be a funny, energetic guy, but ... that could essentially be any character. Thats not what SEGA marketed him as and the people with the disposable income to play his games remember him for. A lot of his most crucial,  most defining characteristics of his character seem largely .... ignored. Like, for example, Sonic isn't the type to just run away from home just because people are interested in his powers. If people harass him for that, he's the type to fight back. It'd be one thing if the story was depicting how Sonic gradually developed his core characteristics throughout the story. How perhaps Sonic initially WAS someone who ran away and how that effected the world, his life and people around him and how he had to grow from that to the person we're supposed to know him as. And I'm open to being proven wrong, but... I'm not feeling like thats where this movie's headed.

 

Honestly, that's not how I remember Sonic.  However Naka wanted Sonic to act and however SEGA marketed him, it hardly contributed much to the general perception of what sort of character he is compared to DiC's cartoons and their derivative media.  That was inevitably our perception of Sonic's persona, supporting cast and world, as games themselves weren't capable of showing much at the time.  

Sonic, to me, was always a goofy, fun-loving guy.    I watched a bunch of Sonic cartoons recently, and despite the different tone of the freedom fighters cartoon compared to AoSTH, the strange thing is that Sonic himself isn't much different between them.  He's a frequently smiling, giggling and quipping guy even around Robotnik and the swatbots, and it doesn't feel out of place because Sonic is able to get away with it.  It's not that Sonic is so idiotic that he doesn't realize that things are at stake, and that looks to be true in this movie, too, since he learns early on that villains are after him and endanger those who are close to him.  Rather, continuing to look at things in a playful manner even when they're dire is Sonic's way of signaling to villains that they haven't broken his spirit.

The backlash against more serious plots definitely made SEGA retreat from them in a hurry, but the only game where Sonic himself was seen as too serious was Sonic 2006.  Otherwise Sonic from Dreamcast onward isn't too different from DiC Sonic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might sound bizarre to hear, but sometimes someone else's vision of a character is better than what the original creator's vision of it was. Someone who hated The Flintstones made a DC Flintstones comic that was way better than the original show. The people who worked on nicktoons like Ren & Stimpy, Danny Phantom, and The Loud House, but didn't CREATES those shows had way more involvement and creative control than the people who DID create those shows (especially since the creator of Loud House was fired and the show is still running and still good). This doesn't happen to EVERY property, a lot of shows, movies, and even video games started to suck when they lost key creative people in their teams, but it's not impossible. People who worked on SATAM weren't from SEGA.

 

Believe it or not, critically, not a lot of people actually like the Sonic OVA. It's especially not something general audiences would love. If this Sonic movie ends up being above average, and the creators don't like it, or it wasn't what they originally invisioned, their opinions matter, but they probably won't understand why people like it.

 

It's sounds like the people at SEGA who aren't liking what's happening with this film (more specifically the people who dislike the redesign) were wanting something more in line with Bay Turtles or Transformers. I personally think SEGA gave up on Boom because they were being way too ambitious about it by merchandising and making games for Boom way too early in its course, season 1 was more of experimentation than anything, and the network treated it horribly, but also because they didn't understand the potential of the series during season 2.

If they had the right people working on it from the very beginning, didn't sell toys and make games until it gained more recognition, and probably if it had been a Netflix or Hulu original, Boom would have probably still be a thing to this day, and it might have even created a major cult following. We probably would have even gotten a Boom movie at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Almar said:

Feh. Not impressed by aping nostalgia. Especially when it's apparent that movie makers either don't get Sonic as he was envisioned by Naka and Co. or value him.

Well, they seem to be trying, unlike Sonic Team. And at least they’ve brought humans back, even if in a different context from any older media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gamecuber64 said:

This might sound bizarre to hear, but sometimes someone else's vision of a character is better than what the original creator's vision of it was.

Sometimes, is this one of those times?

Has your deep seeded dislike of Sonic's character caused you to now currently think this?

Or is this a case of you liking Sonic so much that like a rational person you see his portrayal as not needing to be seriously accurate.

Are there any other exaggerations I can use that happens to apply to another group of fans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a huge belief in this movie's writing being great, but I can't see what's appealing about Sonic being a prick to people who don't have it coming.  I found it hilarious when he slapped Tails in the Sonic Shorts parody of "Sonic Says" segments, but there the joke is that you don't expect Sonic to do it in a PSA aimed at children, yet he's still doing it in reaction to Tails doing something wrong; in this case misspelling a word on a sign. Sonic telling Tails to shut up when it's clear Tails is in trouble is not a good act to follow.

I also don't see why sleeping is vital to Sonic's appeal.  He didn't sleep in any of the Genesis games, so far as I recall, and in Sonic X I detested how much he preferred sleeping to running.

Share this post


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

Sometimes, is this one of those times?

Has your deep seeded dislike of Sonic's character caused you to now currently think this?

Or is this a case of you liking Sonic so much that like a rational person you see his portrayal as not needing to be seriously accurate.

Are there any other exaggerations I can use that happens to apply to another group of fans?

I like the video game Sonic character. Classic Sonic is really charming even without a voice, and you can see so much personality out of him. So much attitude in his expressions. I like that the adventure-era Sonic/Sonic X Sonic has a bit of snark and that same attitude but still has a huge heart and sympathy for helping others. But I think that kind of character that Sonic has only works best if it's in the setting of a video game or television series.

 

I also like it when people who aren't from SEGA experiment with this character, and execute it well. Sonic has proven to be a likable television character in 3 different animated shows now (Satam Sonic has that same attitude as classic Sonic but now with a voice, Sonic X is similar to the adventure era Sonic, and Sonic Boom Sonic is hilariously snarky and comical).

 

A new movie adaptation is entirely different from a game or show though. I don't really blame them for making some changes, because they need to introduce this character to people who have never seen anything related to Sonic The Hedgehog. This new movie Sonic seems like a more innocent child with enthusiastic charisma, and a GROWTH snark. Basically, the origin of how Sonic became Sonic. That to me is a pretty great way of telling new people who this character is. Character development. I truly think that even though there's major risks to this film, there's a lot of potential. Like one of the producers of Sonic Boom said while they were working on the series, SEGA is bold to allow this much creative control.

 

Edit: the movie will also clearly show how Sonic managed to control his speed or his "power", which I think is very interesting, and adds a lot of cartoony visual gags like the redesign trailer has displayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I see you chose the 2nd option.

8 minutes ago, Scritch the Cat said:

I also don't see why sleeping is vital to Sonic's appeal.  He didn't sleep in any of the Genesis games, so far as I recall, and in Sonic X I detested how much he preferred sleeping to running.

Sonic as a speedster isn't hyper-active, that's pretty much it. He's impatient, but that's only when there's stuff happening otherwise he tends to be more relaxed.

Share this post


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

Well, they seem to be trying, unlike Sonic Team. And at least they’ve brought humans back, even if in a different context from any older media.

It's just Sonic X. Still pushing some opposition between Sonic and humanity rather than having him them all as denizens of one world.

Nobody in Man of the Year or Adventure One found Sonic odd for being a hedgehog. Nor were there signs that there were any differences in behavior between humans and funny animals

Also, Sonic was designed to contrast with Mario in that he was a punkass kid. Him being a jerk who's lounging around when not entertaining himself through adventure and fighting suits him fine.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not appealing to me and not how he's been depicted much of the time; that's the bottom line.  If other people prefer a meaner Sonic, that's fine, and honestly, it's something you could do with the backstory they're giving Sonic here, but it simply isn't as marketable in children's media.  You can't take that persona as far and you can't make the scenario as dark as you would in a more mature work.

As to Sonic liking to sleep in his down-time, I don't object to that but in Boom it had gotten to the point of Sonic being the straight man to other characters.  That's viable when other characters are also cartoon animals, but when his co-stars are humans?  Since we're stuck with that, I'm okay with Sonic being hyper and giddy and exhausting them.

Share this post


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

It is not appealing to me and not how he's been depicted much of the time; that's the bottom line.  If other people prefer a meaner Sonic, that's fine, and honestly, it's something you could do with the backstory they're giving Sonic here, but it simply isn't as marketable in children's media. 

I don't like jerky Sonic either. I don't really understand why anyone would want another stereotypical ego heavy selfish character. I mean in Boom and SATAM he has a bit of an ego, but he isn't a toal sociopath. In other adaptations he has snark against his enemies, but not just out of nowhere with random people or his friends.

I feel like in Team Sonic Racing's story mode, Sonic's interaction with characters was pretty rude and completely out of character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, StaticMania said:

Why would you say this?

One reason is that parents will be concerned about good role-models.  Not all of them will care, but for some, a character aimed at children who has rudeness as a defining character trait is not a character they will feel comfortable exposing those children to.  That's a potential loss of money.

Another reason is what I described above: An antihero can only play so much to the edgy adventurous side many people have, when he's stifled by a rating cap.  I believe I recall reading an interview with someone at SEGA, opining that as gaming has changed, they can never relive the "glory days" when Sonic was the game that the young and uppity played to feel good about being young and uppity.  Maybe he was pitched as the anti-Mario at one point, but he simply can't have that reputation when Rockstar Games is around to steal it. Not to mention myriad other series rated above E.  Instead, SEGA was focusing on keeping Sonic one of the recognizable icons of E-rated gaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scritch the Cat said:

One reason is that parents will be concerned about good role-models.

Boy this brings me back to the early nineties when I remember that very concern floating around because of Sonic being a "teenage rebel".

It's funny how times have changed and kids have to be more and more sheltered. What exactly does the "Parental Guidance" of PG stand for if the movie has to control itself so parents don't have to tend to the "Parental Guidance" part of being a parent? What's the point of Sonic having flaws if you have to push those aside just in case the kids latch onto his bad aspects instead of his good instead of helping the child learn the differences between mistakes and things that are wrong and doing what is right? Honestly I feel like the entire rating system needs to be renamed since it seems like parents can't be expected to do their part as described by the rating.

I don't mean to come across too heated, but I really wish more parents would actually, you know, parent. Sometimes it boggles my mind how blessed I am to have such good parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sonic Fan J said:

Boy this brings me back to the early nineties when I remember that very concern floating around because of Sonic being a "teenage rebel".

It's funny how times have changed and kids have to be more and more sheltered. What exactly does the "Parental Guidance" of PG stand for if the movie has to control itself so parents don't have to tend to the "Parental Guidance" part of being a parent? What's the point of Sonic having flaws if you have to push those aside just in case the kids latch onto his bad aspects instead of his good instead of helping the child learn the differences between mistakes and things that are wrong and doing what is right? Honestly I feel like the entire rating system needs to be renamed since it seems like parents can't be expected to do their part as described by the rating.

I don't mean to come across too heated, but I really wish more parents would actually, you know, parent. Sometimes it boggles my mind how blessed I am to have such good parents.

I agree. The rating system is so skewed. There's so many animated movies that have literally nothing wrong with them, but have the PG rating slapped on. They're basically just G rated films in disguise. I feel the same way about a lot of PG-13 films these days as well. They're just PG films disguised as PG-13 films.

And yes I know about the labels. They're skewed as well. Inside Out is really rated PG for "themetic elements and some action"? That's ridiculous.

 

Edit: At least Detective Pikachu had swearing and Spider-Verse had some swearing but also major death and violence. At least shows like Adventure Time and Regular have actual mature themes and violence. At least Rango had both swearing and violence. Did you know The Simpsons still mostly gets the PG rating today?

But why is The LEGO Movie PG? Why is The Grinch PG? Why is Wreck It Ralph PG? Why is Sponge Out Of Water PG? Why is BUMBLEBEE PG-13?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gamecuber64 said:

I don't like jerky Sonic either. I don't really understand why anyone would want another stereotypical ego heavy selfish character. I mean in Boom and SATAM he has a bit of an ego, but he isn't a toal sociopath. In other adaptations he has snark against his enemies, but not just out of nowhere with random people or his friends.

I feel like in Team Sonic Racing's story mode, Sonic's interaction with characters was pretty rude and completely out of character.

 

If you make an incarnation where Sonic's a jerk, it needs to be something that's called out on and developed. My problem with jerk-ass versions of Sonic is that the character's don't act realistically enough to how they're being treated. Its not treated enough like its an actual flaw, a problem common in various versions of Mary-Sues.

That being said, Sonic doesn't "have" to be a jerk for him to have some of his defining characteristics. Being a character whose assertive at getting what he wants doesn't automatically make him an all-around 'jerk'.

 

6 hours ago, Scritch the Cat said:

One reason is that parents will be concerned about good role-models.  Not all of them will care, but for some, a character aimed at children who has rudeness as a defining character trait is not a character they will feel comfortable exposing those children to.  That's a potential loss of money.

 

Not really. Being a 'jerk' isn't whats going to set parents off but, the messages you convey with that. For example, if a character is mean to people, they're going to expect some degree of consequence or negative reaction in the game for those actions.

But I think people are approaching this the wrong way. People are trying too hard to make Sonic 'one' way. He has a lot of defining characteristics but there doesnt have to be one way to convey this. Why not let people decide in-game how they want Sonic to act and what decisions he ultimately makes? Even if the overall outcome of the story is linear, the decisions made in between that don't have to be. Story-wise, I feel like perhaps Sonic's gameplay should better reflect the character and be more about paving your own way. Making your own choices.

 

Share this post


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

It is not appealing to me and not how he's been depicted much of the time; that's the bottom line.  If other people prefer a meaner Sonic, that's fine, and honestly, it's something you could do with the backstory they're giving Sonic here, but it simply isn't as marketable in children's media. 

Plenty of "children's" media have more obviously flawed characters. For Zeus' sake, kids think Wolverine's cool and Daffy Duck's funny.

Also, there are plenty of rude teenage boys in storyland and this world. More to the point, it's not TVland's job to raise children. 

8 hours ago, Scritch the Cat said:

Another reason is what I described above: An antihero can only play so much to the edgy adventurous side many people have, when he's stifled by a rating cap.  I believe I recall reading an interview with someone at SEGA, opining that as gaming has changed, they can never relive the "glory days" when Sonic was the game that the young and uppity played to feel good about being young and uppity.  Maybe he was pitched as the anti-Mario at one point, but he simply can't have that reputation when Rockstar Games is around to steal it. Not to mention myriad other series rated above E.  Instead, SEGA was focusing on keeping Sonic one of the recognizable icons of E-rated gaming.

Consider how big of a laughingstock Sonic is today, apparently Sega's methods aren't working out.

  

10 hours ago, Scritch the Cat said:

It is not appealing to me and not how he's been depicted much of the time; that's the bottom line.  If other people prefer a meaner Sonic, that's fine, and honestly, it's something you could do with the backstory they're giving Sonic here, but it simply isn't as marketable in children's media. 

Tell us more on how flat and inoffensive characterization is the pinnacle of storytelling.

10 hours ago, Scritch the Cat said:

As to Sonic liking to sleep in his down-time, I don't object to that but in Boom it had gotten to the point of Sonic being the straight man to other characters.  That's viable when other characters are also cartoon animals, but when his co-stars are humans?  Since we're stuck with that, I'm okay with Sonic being hyper and giddy and exhausting them.

So are you ignoring how humans with major dialogue have been repeatedly shown as no less "wacky" than the talking animals (Eggman himself for one) in the games and expanded universe? There is nothing in Sonic's intended design that has him in opposition to humans or their living spaces (hence official sources saying he digs junk food or him moonwalking on a car in front of a huge crowd or him running around a city filled with humans in Man of the Year).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should also make mention that trying to appeal primarily to children isn't going to help Sonic or SEGA either. So I'm not opposed to Sonic's gaming rating going up to a degree. The problem with making Sonic too child-geared imo, is ..... Little kids aren't the ones investing in him like that, anymore. Thats not to say they never buy his games, but They're not the ones with $60 to blow to keep the franchise going. And if they do, they're usually spending that money on Phone Apps, AAA games or games with more exploitative and immersive multiplayer features (ex: Fortnite, Minecraft and ironically the GTA series). And while Nintendo can boast a wider child audience, that's largely in part because they managed to maintain brand loyalty from the previous generation; Adult fans who introduced their kids to Mario, for example. Meanwhile once SEGA's fans get beyond a certain point in age, they're discarded. And I'm not talking simply about the SatAM/Archie crowd either. I'm also referring to people who liked the Adventure series, and some of the other earlier 2000 titles. SEGA can't keep its older fans around long enough to maintain brand loyalty. And as a result, they get less children who are interested in buying their games.

Now, I'm not saying SEGA needs to make Sonic rated M or to make it too mature to the point it feels try-hard (*cough* Shadow's game *cough!*). but, just to keep older fans more in mind when they make games. people over-estimate the degree younger children contribute to the gaming industry on their own. Especially with the cost of producing and selling games going up. Part of SEGA's marketing woes have historically always been their inability to accept hard truths. Just because SEGA WANTS to make kids the targeted demographic doesn't mean they're reliable enough to make the primary source of investment. Just like how in the late 90s/2000s, SoJ tried changing the more mainstream Sonic to be more Japanese-appealing despite the fact.... Japanese weren't buying his games.

From my experience, I find SEGA's making Sonic games TOO child-geared. To the point they have no identity anymore.  The world itself typically feels like a generic Mario rip-off. And if I wanted that, I'd just go watch the real thing. Their biggest mistake I think, was trying to make a single mainstream version of Sonic, while discarding other popular incarnations of the series. Debilitating mandates, as well as this insistence that he and the other characters act like classic, Mickey Mouse-esque, timeless characters who never develop when..... No one's looking for those kinds of characters anymore. Having other versions of Sonic would have not only appealed to a wider market, but could have allowed the characters for example, to develop without effecting another storyline. Additionally, it would have allowed the brand to transition in and out of new things once certain trends died down. Megaman for example, has many different versions of the character, and part of SEGA's entire crossover with Capcom and World's Unite was showcasing this. There's no excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sonic Fan J said:

Boy this brings me back to the early nineties when I remember that very concern floating around because of Sonic being a "teenage rebel".

It's funny how times have changed and kids have to be more and more sheltered. What exactly does the "Parental Guidance" of PG stand for if the movie has to control itself so parents don't have to tend to the "Parental Guidance" part of being a parent? What's the point of Sonic having flaws if you have to push those aside just in case the kids latch onto his bad aspects instead of his good instead of helping the child learn the differences between mistakes and things that are wrong and doing what is right? Honestly I feel like the entire rating system needs to be renamed since it seems like parents can't be expected to do their part as described by the rating.

I don't mean to come across too heated, but I really wish more parents would actually, you know, parent. Sometimes it boggles my mind how blessed I am to have such good parents.

I think you're missing the point.  Movie ratings do not correspond very heavily to what moral example is being conveyed, if any, and that's largely because they don't take into account who is doing what and for what reason.  Birth of A Nation is not morally equivalent to Blazing Saddles just because they're set in the same era and both involve the KKK clashing with black people.  Whom they treat as the hero in that scenario is entirely different.  It's not just about saying "These films depict historical cases of racism, so let's deem them equally unfit for children".  Of course parents have a responsibility to teach children right from wrong and about depressing things like death and racism, but the movies send plenty messages of their own.

Moving back to Sonic, Robotnik torturing Tails by holding him underwater would be a much more brutal scene than Sonic yelling at Tails to shut up when he's demanding to be saved from drowning because he can't swim, and might well boost the MPAA rating up.  However, when the villain is doing the nasty thing and the film makes clear he's a villain and he needs to be stopped, it's sending what many parents would call a positive message. The same cannot be said about a story's hero doing jerky things and the story treating it as a joke rather than a flaw to be addressed, even if be they're much less jerky than the villain's stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rosaleia said:

I should also make mention that trying to appeal primarily to children isn't going to help Sonic or SEGA either. So I'm not opposed to Sonic's gaming rating going up to a degree. The problem with making Sonic too child-geared imo, is ..... Little kids aren't the ones investing in him like that, anymore. Thats not to say they never buy his games, but They're not the ones with $60 to blow to keep the franchise going. And if they do, they're usually spending that money on Phone Apps, AAA games or games with more exploitative and immersive multiplayer features (ex: Fortnite, Minecraft and ironically the GTA series). And while Nintendo can boast a wider child audience, that's largely in part because they managed to maintain brand loyalty from the previous generation; Adult fans who introduced their kids to Mario, for example. Meanwhile once SEGA's fans get beyond a certain point in age, they're discarded. And I'm not talking simply about the SatAM/Archie crowd either. I'm also referring to people who liked the Adventure series, and some of the other earlier 2000 titles. SEGA can't keep its older fans around long enough to maintain brand loyalty. And as a result, they get less children who are interested in buying their games.

Now, I'm not saying SEGA needs to make Sonic rated M or to make it too mature to the point it feels try-hard (*cough* Shadow's game *cough!*). but, just to keep older fans more in mind when they make games. people over-estimate the degree younger children contribute to the gaming industry on their own. Especially with the cost of producing and selling games going up. Part of SEGA's marketing woes have historically always been their inability to accept hard truths. Just because SEGA WANTS to make kids the targeted demographic doesn't mean they're reliable enough to make the primary source of investment. Just like how in the late 90s/2000s, SoJ tried changing the more mainstream Sonic to be more Japanese-appealing despite the fact.... Japanese weren't buying his games.

From my experience, I find SEGA's making Sonic games TOO child-geared. To the point they have no identity anymore.  The world itself typically feels like a generic Mario rip-off. And if I wanted that, I'd just go watch the real thing. Their biggest mistake I think, was trying to make a single mainstream version of Sonic, while discarding other popular incarnations of the series. Debilitating mandates, as well as this insistence that he and the other characters act like classic, Mickey Mouse-esque, timeless characters who never develop when..... No one's looking for those kinds of characters anymore. Having other versions of Sonic would have not only appealed to a wider market, but could have allowed the characters for example, to develop without effecting another storyline. Additionally, it would have allowed the brand to transition in and out of new things once certain trends died down. Megaman for example, has many different versions of the character, and part of SEGA's entire crossover with Capcom and World's Unite was showcasing this. There's no excuse.

I agree.  Well, technically I don't have a good insight into what children like these days since I don't spend much time around them and don't watch much TV, but don't want inert, non-developing characters.  Having watched more of the Freedom Fighters cartoon than ever before recently, while many characters aren't deep, I must say that I enjoy Sonic having romantic feelings, even being in a relationship.

Not that I want the series' plots to turn into romance, but what SEGA doesn't seem to get when forbidding Sonic to be in romantic relationships is that it doesn't mandate this.  The Donkey Kong Country series never sacrificed any identity as fast platformers with simple plots or became more angsty once Diddy had a girlfriend; they just added a playable character, proclaimed her to be his girlfriend, and that was all.  In retrospect, the series should never have shifted focus off of Donkey Kong himself, but adding a relationship didn't have to do that.  If Sonic is going to hang out with other characters and he does, nothing is wrong with him kissing one of them.

And I feel if they aren't going to do this, at least they shouldn't make a character whose entire life goal is to become Sonic's girlfriend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scritch the Cat said:

I think you're missing the point.  Movie ratings do not correspond very heavily to what moral example is being conveyed, if any, and that's largely because they don't take into account who is doing what and for what reason.  Birth of A Nation is not morally equivalent to Blazing Saddles just because they're set in the same era and both involve the KKK clashing with black people.  Whom they treat as the hero in that scenario is entirely different.  It's not just about saying "These films depict historical cases of racism, so let's deem them equally unfit for children".  Of course parents have a responsibility to teach children right from wrong and about depressing things like death and racism, but the movies send plenty messages of their own.

Moving back to Sonic, Robotnik torturing Tails by holding him underwater would be a much more brutal scene than Sonic yelling at Tails to shut up when he's demanding to be saved from drowning because he can't swim, and might well boost the MPAA rating up.  However, when the villain is doing the nasty thing and the film makes clear he's a villain and he needs to be stopped, it's sending what many parents would call a positive message. The same cannot be said about a story's hero doing jerky things and the story treating it as a joke rather than a flaw to be addressed, even if be they're much less jerky than the villain's stuff.

You posted a lot of words just to say that being a Mary Sue or some other variety of flat inoffensive character is good.

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.