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

[Scritch the Cat]

Also Antoine wasn't blameless.  In some episodes he went to really creepy lengths to move in on Sally, despite her clearly being Sonic's girlfriend.

Moving back to the hyperactivity, Sonic in the original games would signal that he was annoyed when he didn't have anything to do; not when he had to do something.  If that's not what Naka wanted and the OVA is, I can sympathize to a point, but the fact is that Sonic as gamers knew him and loved him wasn't that.  

It's different in cases like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, which had spent three years as an indie pictorial book more in accords with Eastman's Laird's vision and was very successful by those niche standards before having to compromise its identity to be a children's cartoon.  They had a valid defense of their vision for the brand beyond ego.  

But the world hasn't any proof that Sonic would have been a success if he was a jerk who whined when he had to save friends in trouble.  That was not how Sonic initially appeared in the games and went on to be in most adaptations.  The Sonic who was a success rescued distressed animals without a second thought.  The OVA didn't debut until after Sonic became a success with that nicer portrayal.

[Sonic Fan J]

To my knowledge the Fleetway comics actually characterize Sonic as far worse than anything implied by the OVA and completely misses the idea of a jerk with a heart of gold. While I won't defend Sonic's lack of attentiveness of Tails, it does actually fall in line with what I expect out of his character in the classic era. As an American who managed to avoid all most localized media back in the nineties my perception of Sonic was not shaped by the cartoons and comics and more so from what tidbits I could learn of him from the Japanese side of things. And that is perhaps the key to this discussion; the Japanese. One has to remember that Naka is Japanese and in his fifties and his perception of what is appropriate for children is vastly different than the west and younger generations.

As for me putting it on parents, the idea of a parents involvement with a role model, or character that can be, stems from the importance of setting good examples. One can enjoy a fictional character all they want, and even be motivated by them, but you should not expect the fictional character to have to be responsible so as not to lead a child astray. Even painting villains as clearly in the wrong as it is does not prevent villains from becoming role models to some people. What that tells me is that parents have failed to instill good values in their children through being good role models themselves and the need for fictional characters to be clean of flaws that could be villainizing or harmful is because the parents are admitting that they are not good role models/don't have time for their children and are relying on a fictional character to care for their child. To be fair, even with parents who are good role models and have time for their children, children are still impressionable and can be easily influenced so minimizing flaws like that or applying some good old fashioned karma to a hero's more harmful flaws can mitigate attachment to those flaws. In that regard the OVA does actually have a bit of karma for Sonic who after ignoring Tails and letting a bad scenario get worse is himself in danger of drowning later with Tails unable to help. Unfortunately it wasn't framed as such though, but the point remains that even hero's can have harmful flaws if those flaws are addressed and if parents actually involve themselves in a positive manner with the media their children are consuming.

Still, the long and short of it is that both parents and those making entertainment aimed at children are responsible to varying degrees. If you are making a movie that is going to net a PG (or equivalent) rating then you have to leave talking points for parents to use to explain why harmful character flaws are exactly that. Of course parents still have to actually be available for parenting for that to work and I know that does not always work out due to lifestyle needs (no one gives single parents anywhere near enough credit). But should the lack of availability of some parents mean that all protagonists in children's stories be devoid of any harmful flaws? I personally don't think so, but I was raised by some awesome parents so I'm pretty fortunate in that way. As a result I can appreciate Sonic when he is portrayed as an aloof jerk with a heart of gold. In fact, that is my preferred interpretation of Sonic with the OVA being my all time favorite. Could him being a jerk be better framed to just be misunderstanding him being more aloof? It sure could, but even removing Sonic's aloofness just so he never appears like a jerk is taking it a bit too far in my opinion.

[Rosaleia]

1 hour ago, Sonic Fan J said:

To my knowledge the Fleetway comics actually characterize Sonic as far worse than anything implied by the OVA and completely misses the idea of a jerk with a heart of gold. While I won't defend Sonic's lack of attentiveness of Tails, it does actually fall in line with what I expect out of his character in the classic era. As an American who managed to avoid all most localized media back in the nineties my perception of Sonic was not shaped by the cartoons and comics and more so from what tidbits I could learn of him from the Japanese side of things. And that is perhaps the key to this discussion; the Japanese. One has to remember that Naka is Japanese and in his fifties and his perception of what is appropriate for children is vastly different than the west and younger generations.

As for me putting it on parents, the idea of a parents involvement with a role model, or character that can be, stems from the importance of setting good examples. One can enjoy a fictional character all they want, and even be motivated by them, but you should not expect the fictional character to have to be responsible so as not to lead a child astray. Even painting villains as clearly in the wrong as it is does not prevent villains from becoming role models to some people. What that tells me is that parents have failed to instill good values in their children through being good role models themselves and the need for fictional characters to be clean of flaws that could be villainizing or harmful is because the parents are admitting that they are not good role models/don't have time for their children and are relying on a fictional character to care for their child. To be fair, even with parents who are good role models and have time for their children, children are still impressionable and can be easily influenced so minimizing flaws like that or applying some good old fashioned karma to a hero's more harmful flaws can mitigate attachment to those flaws. In that regard the OVA does actually have a bit of karma for Sonic who after ignoring Tails and letting a bad scenario get worse is himself in danger of drowning later with Tails unable to help. Unfortunately it wasn't framed as such though, but the point remains that even hero's can have harmful flaws if those flaws are addressed and if parents actually involve themselves in a positive manner with the media their children are consuming.

Still, the long and short of it is that both parents and those making entertainment aimed at children are responsible to varying degrees. If you are making a movie that is going to net a PG (or equivalent) rating then you have to leave talking points for parents to use to explain why harmful character flaws are exactly that. Of course parents still have to actually be available for parenting for that to work and I know that does not always work out due to lifestyle needs (no one gives single parents anywhere near enough credit). But should the lack of availability of some parents mean that all protagonists in children's stories be devoid of any harmful flaws? I personally don't think so, but I was raised by some awesome parents so I'm pretty fortunate in that way. As a result I can appreciate Sonic when he is portrayed as an aloof jerk with a heart of gold. In fact, that is my preferred interpretation of Sonic with the OVA being my all time favorite. Could him being a jerk be better framed to just be misunderstanding him being more aloof? It sure could, but even removing Sonic's aloofness just so he never appears like a jerk is taking it a bit too far in my opinion.

 

I think the better question is, why SHOULD Sonic be primarily marketed to children when when their demographic can't reliably afford the games in the first place?

[Diogenes]

5 minutes ago, Rosaleia said:

I think the better question is, why SHOULD Sonic be primarily marketed to children when when their demographic can't reliably afford the games in the first place?

It's not like things being marketed to children is some kind of oddity.

[Wraith]

14 minutes ago, Rosaleia said:

 

I think the better question is, why SHOULD Sonic be primarily marketed to children when when their demographic can't reliably afford the games in the first place?

video games literally caught on by being marketed as children's toys in the 80s

[Rosaleia]

6 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

It's not like things being marketed to children is some kind of oddity.

I'm not saying SEGA should specifically work to exclude them, but there's no sense in tailoring their games around a demographic whose not going to actually buy the game. They need to focus more on the older gamers who can reliably pay for Sonic games and those fans they lost but can otherwise get back if they stopped ignoring them. With kids, its not a matter of fixing something they think is wrong to make a better product because ... A lot of the time, they can't even pay for it.

4 minutes ago, Wraith said:

video games literally caught on by being marketed as children's toys in the 80s

.... And? The nature of gaming isn't the way it was in the 80s anymore. More adults are playing video games now. Gaming has become a more accepted, mainstream pastime. Also, video games today cost a lot more than they did in the 80s, 90s or even early 2000s. SEGA knows the overall fanbase and those they can get to return to the franchise are largely adults. Why do you think they keep trying to ride on the nostalgic coattails of the 90s to stay afloat?

[Meta77]

21 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.

This would explain why CN runs the SAME dove ads about self esteem nearly every ad break compared to the early 00s where they had the City ads/old dexter and gang ads. To often are others expected to raise someone else's child and then the parents of said kid complain when their kid runs into something. Parental Guidance means just that. I mean I grew up as a early 90s baby. I remember watching Gargoyles and seeing the action in it. Its still technically a children show that drew a older crowd.

[Wraith]

6 minutes ago, Rosaleia said:

 

.... And? The nature of gaming isn't the way it was in the 80s anymore. More adults are playing video games now. Gaming has become a more accepted, mainstream pastime. Also, video games today cost a lot more than they did in the 80s, 90s or even early 2000s. SEGA knows the overall fanbase and those they can get to return to the franchise are largely adults. Why do you think they keep trying to ride on the nostalgic coattails of the 90s to stay afloat?

The same marketing tactics work for many franchises aimed at kids. Nintendo's whole shtick is being toyetic.

[Rosaleia]

14 minutes ago, Wraith said:

The same marketing tactics work for many franchises aimed at kids. Nintendo's whole shtick is being toyetic.

Toy franchises =/= Gaming franchises. Toys are a hell of a lot more affordable for a child compared to a video game.

Also, Nintendo isn't a good example because they largely get by on adult fans and brand loyalty. A lot of the kids who do play their games were introduced to the series by their parents. Older gamers, help pave the way for new blood to come into the franchise, and invest in the company. An advantage Sonic could have had if SEGA hadn't alienated so many of his fans.

Likewise, if older gamers dislike Sonic games and think they aren't good quality they're going to advise their children away from them. I've heard parents and older siblings tell kids not touch "that series" when referring to Sonic. So yes, how the older gamers perceive your games is very important. Especially when they're the ones your going to have to convince to pay for the game.

 

[Kuzu]

Kids always have and always will be Sonic's primary demographic, and they're the primary reason he's still kinda relevant.

Kids love Sonic, because he has a design that's easily recognizable and appealing to the average child.

And saying kids can't afford games is a bad take cuz you know...kids have parents. Which is the same exact thing a lot of us did when we were younger.

[Rosaleia]

12 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

Kids always have and always will be Sonic's primary demographic, and they're the primary reason he's still kinda relevant..

In what way? Again, they can't consistently afford most of his games. And they damn sure can't afford it without a parent. And just because someone markets to children primarily doesn't mean they should. And on that subject:

 

12 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

Kids love Sonic, because he has a design that's easily recognizable and appealing to the average child.

And saying kids can't afford games is a bad take cuz you know...kids have parents. Which is the same exact thing a lot of us did when we were younger

Yes. Kids have parents. But unlike parents of previous generations, these are parents who have internet and are gamers. And if those parents dislike your games, or base decisions on what the rest of the gaming community thinks, they'll advise their kids or, alternatively, younger siblings against playing it. The economy's not the same as it used to be, anymore. Games are more expensive, parents don't have as much money to spend on games, and don't wanna blow their money on what they deem a mediocre series. One of SEGA's grave mistakes was discarding their older fans. Because now those older fans have grown up, and will use those experiences against them when SEGA wants their money to get to their kids.

[Wraith]

32 minutes ago, Rosaleia said:

 

Also, Nintendo isn't a good example because they largely get by on adult fans and brand loyalty. A lot of the kids who do play their games were introduced to the series by their parents. Older gamers, help pave the way for new blood to come into the franchise, and invest in the company. An advantage Sonic could have had if SEGA hadn't alienated so many of his fans.

Likewise, if older gamers dislike Sonic games and think they aren't good quality they're going to advise their children away from them. I've heard parents and older siblings tell kids not touch "that series" when referring to Sonic. So yes, how the older gamers perceive your games is very important. Especially when they're the ones your going to have to convince to pay for the game.

 

There's not a lot of evidence regarding this due to laws surrounding companies collecting information from children, but one of the only statistics I can find shows very plainly that the vast majority of Switch owners are below the age of 19 in Japan. 

Otherwise there's not much to go on and this discussion won't go anywhere if all anyone has is anecdotal accounts.

[Rosaleia]

19 minutes ago, Wraith said:

There's not a lot of evidence regarding this due to laws surrounding companies collecting information from children, but one of the only statistics I can find shows very plainly that the vast majority of Switch owners are below the age of 19 in Japan. 

Otherwise there's not much to go on and this discussion won't go anywhere if all anyone has is anecdotal accounts.

...Where did you get a "vast majority" from, when reading this, though? Looking at the data from the graphs, the younger crowd doesn't even make half let alone a landslide majority. Also, this doesn't negate the fact brand loyalty has a role to play in maintaining the Nintendo brand. Yes there are many Switch owners who are kids, but that's often because their parents, who were fans of Nintendo will often buy it for them and then buy another for themselves. With some parents buying multiples of the same consoles so that their kids don't have to share.

Either way, at the end of the day, its basic, common sense to assume a small child can't make money on their own and its the parents who are buying these consoles and their games for them. And unlike Nintendo, SEGA's given them a reason not to want to buy them. What parent's going to want to buy games with a bad reputation, or knowingly subject their child to an infamously toxic fanbase?

I'm not saying ignore kids completely, but SEGA really needs to repair the relationship they destroyed with older fans if they want them to encourage their children back into the franchise. And not just SEGA. Fans really need to watch how they treat each other. Because people look at that, and turn away from the franchise because of that. And then try to encourage others not to get involved. I've seen so many times on gamer forums as well as from my siblings' acquaintances how people tried to get into Sonic but couldn't get past how the fans reacted to their opinions or the opinions of others.

[Wraith]

4 minutes ago, Rosaleia said:

...Where did you get a "vast majority" from, when reading this, though? Looking at the data from the graphs, the younger crowd doesn't even make half let alone a landslide majority. Also, this doesn't negate the fact brand loyalty has a role to play in maintaining the Nintendo brand. Yes there are many Switch owners who are kids, but that's often because their parents, who were fans of Nintendo will often buy it for them and then buy another for themselves. With some parents buying multiples of the same consoles so that their kids don't have to share.

The younger players represent the two biggest chunks of data with the playerbase trending downward after Nintendo's target demographic. That 20-27 year old playerbase is significant but they're not old enough to be passing the games onto their kids yet. 

Nintendo games don't generally swing their focus toward their older players for the next installment, though. I'd argue that the opposite is true and that they're more likely to put in flashy new mechanics and gimmicks that younger players gravitate toward. They just make sure the game isn't fucked up and retains core aspects that experienced players like so they don't leave. A lot of them leave anyway, with Video games becoming a less involved hobby as people swing older.

It'd be nice if Sonic was also considerate of that momentum but you'd only have to look at how there are new IPs or complete refocusing of existing ones  that are success stories among kids to see it's not necessary compared to...catering to younger players to start with. It's important for Sonic to never lose sight of that since catering to the increasingly fickle adult playerbase is just catering to a niche.

[Scritch the Cat]

1 hour ago, Meta77 said:

This would explain why CN runs the SAME dove ads about self esteem nearly every ad break compared to the early 00s where they had the City ads/old dexter and gang ads. To often are others expected to raise someone else's child and then the parents of said kid complain when their kid runs into something. Parental Guidance means just that. I mean I grew up as a early 90s baby. I remember watching Gargoyles and seeing the action in it. Its still technically a children show that drew a older crowd.

Perhaps a bigger reason for that is due to a very infamous incident in Tumblr history, wherein Steven Universe fans cyber-bullied a girl into attempted suicide over her "disrespectful" fanart.  The showrunners were understandably horrified by this, hence the anti-bullying SU PSAs.

Meanwhile, though it is obviously the responsibility of parents to make sure their children grow up right, that can mean various different things.  Maybe it means instilling children with values so thoroughly that they're proofed against contrary values in media they consume, maybe it means watching it with their children to talk about it with them, and maybe it means forbidding children from consuming media deemed harmful.  It depends on the parents but it also depends on the media, and it is at least partially up to that media's creators not to make them so controversial that they fall into the "forbid children from consuming" pile.

[Kuzu]

4 hours ago, Rosaleia said:

In what way? Again, they can't consistently afford most of his games. And they damn sure can't afford it without a parent. And just because someone markets to children primarily doesn't mean they should. And on that subject:

 

...Does the fact that Sonic sold well in the 90's just elude you? There were no adults to cater to in the 90's, because this playerbase you're referring to didn't exist yet.

4 hours ago, Rosaleia said:

Yes. Kids have parents. But unlike parents of previous generations, these are parents who have internet and are gamers. And if those parents dislike your games, or base decisions on what the rest of the gaming community thinks, they'll advise their kids or, alternatively, younger siblings against playing it. The economy's not the same as it used to be, anymore. Games are more expensive, parents don't have as much money to spend on games, and don't wanna blow their money on what they deem a mediocre series. One of SEGA's grave mistakes was discarding their older fans. Because now those older fans have grown up, and will use those experiences against them when SEGA wants their money to get to their kids.

If a kid wants a game, parents are going to get it. Plain and simple. Kids don't give an iota of shit about a game's quality and if you deny a kid a game based on YOUR preferences, then you're kind of an asshole. The game isn't for you, it's for them.

 

This idea that Sonic is doing bad because it caters to kids and not the older fans is rather ridiculous; because you're blatantly ignoring the fact that most of the people here were kids when the series was in it's "dark" age.

You don't even have any evidence to support this claim either, so you're just talking from...nowhere.

[StaticMania]

30 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

...if you deny a kid a game based on YOUR preferences, then you're kind of an asshole.

Wait, people are joking when they say that?

[Rosaleia]

 

7 hours ago, Wraith said:

The younger players represent the two biggest chunks of data with the playerbase trending downward after Nintendo's target demographic. That 20-27 year old playerbase is significant but they're not old enough to be passing the games onto their kids yet.

You shouldn't be too quick to underestimate that demographic. Even if they're not the parents, these are the gamers who are likely going to be the older siblings or extended family of a child who is a Switch owner. And assuming they didn't buy the console or game for the child and not the parent, which is also fairly common, the parents may still look to them for input on what to get the child.

 

7 hours ago, Wraith said:

Nintendo games don't generally swing their focus toward their older players for the next installment, though. I'd argue that the opposite is true and that they're more likely to put in flashy new mechanics and gimmicks that younger players gravitate toward. They just make sure the game isn't fucked up and retains core aspects that experienced players like so they don't leave. A lot of them leave anyway, with Video games becoming a less involved hobby as people swing older.

That still doesn't change the fact that, brand loyalty does help quite a bit with helping maintain the Nintendo brand. You're explaining the "how" in why Nintendo's able to keep a steady balance that keeps adults around long enough to encourage kids to play. Nintendo knows how to appeal to their market. SEGA does not. Nintendo appeals to children, but they don't alienate older gamers and fans the way SEGA does.

 

3 hours ago, Kuzu said:

...Does the fact that Sonic sold well in the 90's just elude you? There were no adults to cater to in the 90's, because this playerbase you're referring to didn't exist yet.

Guess you didn't read my prior post.

Yes, there were kids in the 90s, but consoles and video games were a lot more affordable back then for kids to buy. Sonic had a better reputation, and parents/older siblings of that generation weren't gamers influencing their children's/sibling's decisions. So the circumstances were completely different. Kids could be relied on a lot more to buy the games because they were more affordable, and there wasn't anything discouraging parents and those close to the child from buying them.

 

3 hours ago, Kuzu said:

If a kid wants a game, parents are going to get it.

I think your over-estimating how in-demand Sonic is with children.

Firstly, your assuming parents now can afford to just blow money on whatever $60 game a kid wants. Again, the economy is different than it was in the 90s. The middle class is struggling more than their parents, which means parents have to cut back on spending for their children to give them the necessities. Also most parents will try to teach their kids financial responsibility through things like an allowance. $60 is a lot for a kid to save up for. Many of them are not going to do that for a Sonic title. Many parents and older gamers in the kids family will either advise them not to buy or wait until the prices get cut down until its more affordable for them. And either way, SEGA's losing money. Your assuming parents and people who are older have no influence in what their kids will want to buy.  Kids are more likely to listen to their parents' reasons and input. Guiding a child to make healthy decisions is part of what being a parent is about.

 

3 hours ago, Kuzu said:

Plain and simple. Kids don't give an iota of shit about a game's quality

Then by your logic, what's stopping the parent from saving money and just giving them an app game that's free like Candy Crush or a game like fornite?

 

3 hours ago, Kuzu said:

and if you deny a kid a game based on YOUR preferences, then you're kind of an asshole. The game isn't for you, it's for them.

Doesn't change the fact many parents still do it and will tell a kid to buy the game themselves through the money they save. Trying to add a morality argument doesn't change this. Its like pointing out the fact parents gave their kids GTA V. People have made constant articles regarding the concern, and despite even Rockstar publicly shaming them... it doesn't change the fact parents still do this.

Also, again. Some parents and older family members won't 'force' their kids not to buy a game but will simply advise their kids against it, based on their experiences and the experiences of those around them. And this will often be enough to influence a child's decision.

 

3 hours ago, Kuzu said:

This idea that Sonic is doing bad because it caters to kids and not the older fans is rather ridiculous; because you're blatantly ignoring the fact that most of the people here were kids when the series was in it's "dark" age.

There are a number of reasons Sonic's doing bad, but catering specifically to children for the main, $60 titles isn't going to help his sales. Yes, he was popular with kids, but the differences between then and now are in things like the economy, affordability of games, his reputation, and the fact parents in that age weren't gamers who could influence their children's decisions on what to and what not to play.

 

3 hours ago, Kuzu said:

You don't even have any evidence to support this claim either, so you're just talking from...nowhere.

 

I mean its common sense that kids are going to have trouble buying of all things a $60 game and for Sonic no less.

But, if your that bent on numbers, here ya go:

https://vgsales.fandom.com/wiki/Sonic#cite_note-tssz-160

Look. I'm not saying SEGA has to alienate children from getting their games, but that their marketing tactics need to change. The goal shouldn't be to discourage kids, but also not to make them the primary focus, either. Sonic needs to be bare minimum for general audiences. And SEGA needs to stop alienating their older fans in favor of a market that's not buying. Thats not going to happen when you, for example, try to make the series more child geared with stories like Colors and Lost World, don't develop your characters because you wanna emulate Mickey Mouse -- A character whose storytelling style no longer even appeals to kids anymore let alone adults... And then alienate your older fans by discarding lore and stories popular to them and their demographic like SatAM/Archie or the Adventure series.  They need to get over this whole 'centralized Sonic' concept, and just make AUs to appeal to other facets of the fandom the way Megaman did and learn how to embrace their own diversity. They tried profiting off this with Worlds Unite, so whats stopping them?

And if SEGA wants to make child-geared stuff specifically, it needs to be at a more affordable price kids can buy with an allowance. Like Sonic Dash, Mania, Jump, etc.

 

 

[Almar]

13 hours ago, Scritch the Cat said:

Seriously; talk about mischaracterizng Strawman arguments.  Being a callous jerk unsympathetic to friends at risk of drowning and being a "Mary Sue or some other type of flat, inoffensive character" are not a binary.  They aren't even opposite sides of a continuum.

Sonic as he exists in this movie is not flawless, as evidenced by that point where desire to boast about his speed causes him to throw a bunch of darts precariously.  It's just not the sort of flaw you feel is interesting.  But much of Sonic's past media--which was a success--does not support outright meanness being Sonic's signature flaw.

It's the unsaid direction of what apparently parents demand according to your posts. Creative laziness.

He's just Deadpool and Ezra Miller's Flash. And Sonic in the games where Naka was relevant hardly acts at odds with how he was portrayed in the OVA accounting for whether he had dialogue (him shrugging when Tails crashes in his Adventure One story, ignoring Tails when he's gushing over how cool the Egg Carrier Transformation is, calling Knuckles out on getting tricked again, lounging around when's not actively questing). You're harping on the Shut Up Tails like it was some irredeemable act rather than just a big bro annoyed at his little bro making a fuss.

12 hours ago, Scritch the Cat said:

Also Antoine wasn't blameless.  In some episodes he went to really creepy lengths to move in on Sally, despite her clearly being Sonic's girlfriend.

Moving back to the hyperactivity, Sonic in the original games would signal that he was annoyed when he didn't have anything to do; not when he had to do something.  If that's not what Naka wanted and the OVA is, I can sympathize to a point, but the fact is that Sonic as gamers knew him and loved him wasn't that.  

It's different in cases like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, which had spent three years as an indie pictorial book more in accords with Eastman's Laird's vision and was very successful by those niche standards before having to compromise its identity to be a children's cartoon.  They had a valid defense of their vision for the brand beyond ego.  

But the world hasn't any proof that Sonic would have been a success if he was a jerk who whined when he had to save friends in trouble.  That was not how Sonic initially appeared in the games and went on to be in most adaptations.  The Sonic who was a success rescued distressed animals without a second thought.  The OVA didn't debut until after Sonic became a success with that nicer portrayal.

Him gesturing to the player was just breaking the 4th Wall. And even when he jumps off the screen when you take too long in Sonic CD he gives the player a scowl. He's not being all "cute fast quirky babu." If anything "hyperactive" applies to Amy and Tails (who were both notably younger than Sonic, both pre-teens) and Eggman with Knuckles (who are both foils of Sonic).

And again, there was really no difference between Sonic in the games with Naka's major involvement and the one in the OVA. Don't care what what they did in the Western shows since they repeatedly went against Naka and Co.'s vision (namely when it comes to humans).

[Rosaleia]

10 minutes ago, Almar said:

Don't care what what they did in the Western shows since they repeatedly went against Naka and Co.'s vision (namely when it comes to humans).

I could honestly care less because "Naka's" vision isn't what made Sonic popular in the west, anyway. If we let Sonic Team have their way without any American input, Sonic would have been very different. It was America and the UK's versions of Sonic that brought the initial bread and butter to the table. And SoA's the main reason we even have characters like Amy or Tails because otherwise SEGA would have shipped Sonic with that human girl, Madonna and put Sonic in a band. And I can guarantee you the former wouldn't have sat well with western consumers and parents.

[Almar]

Madonna and the band were scrapped before the game came out so meh. And you make it sound like Naka and Co. (which includes Sonic's designer and the man who designed the game itself) were carried by the Sega of America with them fluking their way into Sonic being a worthy rival of Mario.

Besides, Naka and Co. were willing enough to incorporate elements of what was done with the Westernized lore (see Dr. "Eggman" Robotnik). And I'll be frank in that the direction the franchise has taken when it comes to humans (with the upcoming film but a bit of a wider trend) and the overall setting looks a little too much like playing to those who found Sonic walking around humans in cities with no one commenting on it as strange (or having Sonic otherwise not be framed in opposition to humans rather than just Eggman) rather than the Star Wars meets Captain Planet on Planet of the Furries or Wackyland spins we got in the West's shows and comics (with Sonic X as an awkward Japanese version of that) as off-putting. Well that, and giving an out for their failure to hold Sonic's series to a solid direction in visuals and tone.

[Rosaleia]

18 minutes ago, Almar said:

Madonna and the band were scrapped before the game came out so meh. And you make it sound like Naka and Co. (which includes Sonic's designer and the man who designed the game itself) were carried by the Sega of America with them fluking their way into Sonic being a worthy rival of Mario.

 

Madonna and the band were scrapped because SoA's executives TOLD them to get rid of them. If it hadn't been for that, Tails and Amy wouldn't exist. Also, SoA's advertising as well as the UK's played a large part of what made Sonic popular. Thats not to say Naka didn't contribute anything to Sonic's success, but it didn't rely on soley one person or on just Sonic Team. It was a team effort between SoJ, SoA, and the media they produced.

 

18 minutes ago, Almar said:

Besides, Naka and Co. were willing enough to incorporate elements of what was done with the Westernized lore (see Dr. "Eggman" Robotnik).

But not enough of the more crucial elements people wanted after awhile. They should have just let stories like SatAM remain its own separate universe much like how Megaman has its own AU titles. Half the problem with SoJ was the fact they tried to consolidate too much when it wasn't necessary. Let SoJ's fans have "their" version of Sonic and  the west have theirs, as well. There's no reason why there only needs to be one mainstream version of Sonic.

 

[Almar]

3 minutes ago, Rosaleia said:

Madonna and the band were scrapped because SoA's executives TOLD them to get rid of them. If it hadn't been for that, Tails and Amy wouldn't exist. Also, SoA's advertising as well as the UK's played a large part of what made Sonic popular. Thats not to say Naka didn't contribute anything to Sonic's success, but it didn't rely on soley one person or on just Sonic Team. It was a team effort between SoJ, SoA, and the media they produced.

Sonic being in a band isn't really that off-putting all considered. And besides, Amy came from a manga to begin with (making her a case of someone getting the Harley Quinn treatment).

26 minutes ago, Rosaleia said:

But not enough of the more crucial elements people wanted after awhile. They should have just let stories like SatAM remain its own separate universe much like how Megaman has its own AU titles. Half the problem with SoJ was the fact they tried to consolidate too much when it wasn't necessary. Let SoJ's fans have "their" version of Sonic the west have theirs, as well. There's no reason why there only needs to be one mainstream version of Sonic.

 

Sure. I wouldn't call the current problem "consolidation'' so much as overreaction with no serious respect for what came before (hence Two-Worlds).

[Meta77]

2 hours ago, Rosaleia said:

I could honestly care less because "Naka's" vision isn't what made Sonic popular in the west, anyway. If we let Sonic Team have their way without any American input, Sonic would have been very different. It was America and the UK's versions of Sonic that brought the initial bread and butter to the table. And SoA's the main reason we even have characters like Amy or Tails because otherwise SEGA would have shipped Sonic with that human girl, Madonna and put Sonic in a band. And I can guarantee you the former wouldn't have sat well with western consumers and parents.

Actually it would have done fine actually. Beauty and the beast, TMNT, Gargoyles, Animanachs, *spelled so wrong ,biker mice from mars, just to name a few had characters shipped with human characters. *what hurt one of those was toy sales, though it did get a meh animated sequel years later that no one knew of*

[Almar]

Can we stop acting like all parents are American religio fanatics who think Harry Potter is the Devil?