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

[StaticMania]

13 hours ago, Tarnish said:

Dunno about you guys, but I hate this "multiple iteration of the same character" thing. Makes the whole thing messy, hard to follow, and just raises the question: Who is even Sonic, does he have his own personality anymore? Or he can be anything and everything now with these iterations, there's no 'REAL' Sonic anymore. It's not that he changed or evolved, it's just a different iteration of him.

I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be a problem if game Sonic himself was more consistent...

As it's not a problem for any other long-runner that does this (outside of generally bad portrayals regardless of iteration) and is seen as a positive for people who don't care for the main serving.

The "real" Sonic is obviously the game Sonic, but he's different now. No one would really care otherwise and the "real" Sonic would just be the one a person grew up with.

[Red Hot Jack]

13 hours ago, Tarnish said:

Dunno about you guys, but I hate this "multiple iteration of the same character" thing. Makes the whole thing messy, hard to follow, and just raises the question: Who is even Sonic, does he have his own personality anymore? Or he can be anything and everything now with these iterations, there's no 'REAL' Sonic anymore. It's not that he changed or evolved, it's just a different iteration of him.

Isn't this iteration of Sonic better than in the games?

1. He has an origin story with character development

2. He is actually well written this time

3. He has a great fluffy and expressive design

4. He is well acted

5. There is lore set up in the movie that is way better than anything I've seen in the games, simple, not too dark or too light, not messy and retconned all the time like in the games, where basically each game is like its own (badly written) story.

Sorry to say (?), but when Sega isn't in control we get better Sonic stories (at least), so I wouldn't mind and wouldn't be surprised if the Movie-verse becomes a thing and influences the games. I'm all for it.

[JezMM]

I wouldn't really want the main series to be retconned just because movie Sonic is more engaging from a character perspective.  I also think it's reasonable to dislike the "multiple versions of the character" thing... though at the same time it's like... well, dislike it all you like, not gonna change the fact that that's the angle the Sonic franchise has gone for, and has ever since the 90's, lol.

Either way, Game Sonic doesn't need Movie Sonic's sympathetic backstory retconned upon him to tell interesting stories.  Just good writing.

[StaticMania]

38 minutes ago, Jack at the Cinema said:

Isn't this iteration of Sonic better than in the games?

1. He has an origin story with character development

Immediate disposable logic.

Origin stories aren't automatically interesting.

                       |are|

Character development for the sake of it isn't either. Sonic's an indefinite Video game series, so unless they give him new flaws or whatever...any character development would be disregarded next game or lead to him losing his interesting traits.

[thumbs13]

14 hours ago, Tarnish said:

Dunno about you guys, but I hate this "multiple iteration of the same character" thing. Makes the whole thing messy, hard to follow, and just raises the question: Who is even Sonic, does he have his own personality anymore? Or he can be anything and everything now with these iterations, there's no 'REAL' Sonic anymore. It's not that he changed or evolved, it's just a different iteration of him.

It only makes thing hard to follow if you try to tie everything together. If you treat them on seperate takes on an iconic character like with a Superhero, it's harmless.

[Shadowlax]

1 hour ago, Jack at the Cinema said:

Isn't this iteration of Sonic better than in the games?

1. He has an origin story with character development

2. He is actually well written this time

3. He has a great fluffy and expressive design

4. He is well acted

5. There is lore set up in the movie that is way better than anything I've seen in the games, simple, not too dark or too light, not messy and retconned all the time like in the games, where basically each game is like its own (badly written) story.

Sorry to say (?), but when Sega isn't in control we get better Sonic stories (at least), so I wouldn't mind and wouldn't be surprised if the Movie-verse becomes a thing and influences the games. I'm all for it.

While I do think 3d sonic could do for a redesign and tone change. I don't think it should be the film  , putting the egg's in one basket isn't going to fix sega's issues with time, budget and getting talent to work on the games and direction and vision. If anything they might blow the films momentum and make people hate the movie stuff. Your issues lie with sonic teams flaws not some inherent issue with that sonic

Also all my fav sonic stuff is a bit darker than the film , so i disagree

[Diogenes]

24 minutes ago, thumbs13 said:

It only makes thing hard to follow if you try to tie everything together. If you treat them on seperate takes on an iconic character like with a Superhero, it's harmless.

I wouldn't say harmless. It's not impossible to work around, but Sonic in particular has really struggled with its identity, and the movie being a completely different take on...basically everything about Sonic, means it's one more interpretation that it has to deal with, whether it's pursuing it, rejecting it, or finding some sort of compromise.

[Wraith]

Most brands have multiple iterations nowadays. It's not something to seriously worry about unless you're personally disinterested in one branch in particular and don't want it getting popular enough to influence the rest of it.

(Like me, and this movie.)

[thumbs13]

33 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

I wouldn't say harmless. It's not impossible to work around, but Sonic in particular has really struggled with its identity, and the movie being a completely different take on...basically everything about Sonic, means it's one more interpretation that it has to deal with, whether it's pursuing it, rejecting it, or finding some sort of compromise.

Or we could just let the movie be a movie and let the games be games. At best, they'll introduce Tom the Cop into the games. At worst, they let movies movie and do nothing.

Sonic's problems won't be exaberated by a movie existing anymore than like, Satam existing would. It's just another take on a character who's been around for a long, long time. A movie as milquetoast as the Sonic movie hurts nothing. 

Just like how Batman can go from campy to gritty depending on the story, and just like how the Ninja Turtles can get different backstories in everything, and just like how Mickey Mouse can wear cloaks and fight demons in Kingdom Hearts, Sonic can have alternate takes on the character. It's weird to suggest otherwise, honestly.

[Diogenes]

5 minutes ago, thumbs13 said:

Sonic's problems won't be exaberated by a movie existing anymore than like, Satam existing would.

I mean, think about how much the existence of SatAM has affected the series and the fanbase, though. SatAM brought in a fanbase that far outlasted the cartoon itself, it had a huge influence on Archie Sonic which accumulated its own fans, the two series had an (admittedly minor) impact on the games via Spinball and Chronicles, and a lot of the creative team from late Archie Sonic is now on IDW Sonic.

There are still arguments about putting the Freedom Fighters in the games, decades after the cartoon they were created for was cancelled. The movie could end up being as formative for a lot of new/young fans as SatAM was in its day, especially if it ends up getting the sequels everyone is suddenly expecting. There's no telling what kind of fan desires are going to crop up because of it or what Sega/Sonic Team might do to try to harness that part of the fanbase.

[Wraith]

The games haven't been seriously affected by the Satam pocket. Maybe you'd have a more straightforward Sonic comic if it didn't exist but that's the most you could say about it. 

[Mega]

The thing to keep in mind is that Sega of Japan is really... averse to stuff that they did not make themselves? So I doubt they'd have the movie influence the mainline Sonic games.

[DabigRG]

Just saw the Sonic movie after so much blast processing. It was the good-ish end of okay; I laughed a decent number of times and enjoyed a decent amount of it.

I'll admit that this movie, along with Ben Schwartz, found a good balance of having an annoying character that doesn't really annoy the audience. I don't annoy easy mind, but I haven't had the best feeling about him since I lost track of Ducktales. Up until maybe the ending, it does a good job of selling you on this iteration of Sonic. Don't understand his coffee time, though--that was pretty bull. Padding out this paragraph, wish there was a little more about Longclaw; there was a perfect missed opportunity for a brief emotional moment in the hotel. Probably could've also used at least a little more of a taste for "those who were after Sonic's power." 

On the main human characters, I found something resembling interesting distinctions--when they were alone earlier in the movie, they did a good job being entertaining enough despite some slightly obvious exposition at one point; when they had to interact with Sonic, particularly during the more emotional beats later in the movie, that's when things got kinda awkward and vaguely halfassey. In fact, I'd say many of them with particular notice on the sister-in-law kinda got bad after she fainted. Still, I thought Thomas "Donut Lord" Wachinski was fairly cool for the first half of the movie. (Somecallhim...Tim?)

With the minor human characters...they served their purpose pretty well. Tom's partner was kinda braindead, but just enough to get the point across and seem almost passably funny. The old guy(kinda feel bad for not remembering his name) was used decently enough, though I honestly had difficulty understanding his one-liner near the end. The government leader(which one was Gary Chalk, btw?) almost had a subtle Leslie Nielsen vibe about him, so he was humorous for a chunk of what little time he had. I mentioned Tom's sister-in-law earlier in regards to the acting and that's because I actually found her funny before the delivery started to suffer: the last scene with her for example had the ingredients of being funny...you know why. Everyone else was perfect for what they did. Also, Mr. Stone was a decent throwaway comic foil--he doesn't get much at all, but his reactions were a factor in a few of the bigger laughs.

And last but usually not least, there's Dr. Robotnik(and Mr. Stone). To save some time, I'm gonna say he was a mix of many of these points. He was responsible for a number of the laughs, but there were almost as many times when I was kinda eh--usually before a laugh though. Also like Sonic, this movie did a skochi interesting take on him that had some logic to it, but unfortunately, one might argue it makes him feel inconsistent. He was seldom menacing though, I will say that.

On easter egg stuff, Sonic in the climax take a few poses or shots that I'm sure are from some games, with Unleashed being the one I recognized. As mentioned by what I listened to from the Pizza Party Podcast, I had no idea that special kid happy dance was from Fortnight. And as for THAT scene, I noticed that Robotnik seemed to channel the game voice pretty well at points. I also had mild flashbacks to Birds of Prey due to how the movie started then picked back up, oddly enough.

So there's that. Never expected to be blown away anyway, but I'm glad the movie [almost] shockingly opened at #1, is still raking in the rings, got Sonic a win, and most importantly of all, is ensuring the combined efforts of the development hell, company pass offs, media outcry accompanied backlash, overworked animators, shut down studio, and TVTropey sentiments of "And you thought it would fail" were not in vain.  

[The Man On The Inside]

OK. So I wasn't initially going to see this. I was deeply troubled by the very existence of this film, ever since I was shown the trailer by a friend holding their phone up to me and I instinctively looked away as soon as sonic appeared. It literally hurt. "Why do I get this timeline?" I thought to myself.

I just knew it would be a Cats-tier disaster, regardless of the Sonic design. Even if he looks perfect (and he does), I mean, just how can you make a Sonic film?

After the movie released, I eventually looked at TSS. Whenever a bad Sonic thing comes out, the TSS writers will let you down gently. Makes it easier. Anyway, what do I see but a headline saying the film had the best opening weekend box office of a videogame adaptation of all time and that it had a 65% on RT (which is apparently better than it sounds - 65 would be basically terrible for a videogame on say, metacritic, but RT's numbers have different meanings I think)

Then I finally looked back and saw the trailer and my interest was piqued. I saw Ben Schwartz's retweets to positive reviews of the film and a Forbes article praising it titled something like "How was this film good?". I found that the youtuber Chris Stuckmann gave the movie a B. That's actually good. What. Actual positive reviews.

I caught up, quickly binge-ing on three months' worth of trailers, clips and interviews. Ben Schwartz, Josh Miller, and Jeff Fowler were praising the games, mentioning how they all had Genesises and played Sonic back in the day just like we did in interviews. Schwartz especially - talking about how great Sonic 2 is to this day, and his love of Sonic Mania. I was stunned. Wait - do these people...care?

So as I was starting to see all this positive feedback, and started seeing more and more clips, I knew I had to see this film that I had once completely written off. So here goes:

Spoiler

It's better than "not bad". It put a huge smile on my face. Sonic is a lovably goofy little blue fuzzball. You can't be annoyed at him.

He's Ariel, he's Quasimodo- he wants to be a part of the world he sees but he can't. He's all joking around and pretending to be his own therapist (complete with accent) but drops the act when it gets too real. It was both funny and endearing. They made him adorable. The final design of Sonic sells this way more than the one from the first trailer could have ever hoped to.

I liked that at certain points during the film he raises his hand for a high five but it isn't returned for different reasons, and his reaction to finally being offered a high five was so cute (Again, the design makes this work)! My biggest complaint is that it was 90 minutes long. I think that with a little more time you could get Tom on board with the idea of helping Sonic in a more reasonable way. As it is, Tom seems to be very OK with the existence of Sonic a little too quickly, and even quicker to help. He should have needed more convincing. With a longer runtime you could have better set up why Sonic leaves his homeworld - I think the whole scene with Longclaw took 90 seconds. It could have been 5 minutes.

Overall, It's good wholesome fun for all ages. Not only did this film defy all expectations, but It has also raised my expectations for what they do next (though, no farting or flossing next time, guys, you can do better than that). I just hope the next movie aims a bit higher and has a longer run time, with more of Sonic's planet. 

Overall a pleasant surprise and I can't wait to see what they do next. This was a good film, let's have an amazing film next time.

[Fire-N-Space]

I can definitely see game Sonic turning in to his movie self if it gains traction in popularity.   

[Tarnish]

11 hours ago, thumbs13 said:

If you treat them on seperate takes on an iconic character like with a Superhero

Which again, raises the question: which one of the 'takes' is the REAL one, or is there even such a thing? Because if there isn't, all the complaints of "That isn't Sonic, they turned Sonic into a joke/comedian!" can now be just deflected with "Sit down, shut up and wait until you get a take on the character you like sometime in the future, this take on the character wasn't meant for you, you 90s kid!".

What if we could use that for everything? "Oh, you hated how Luke Skywalker was portrayed in the sequel trilogy? Well this is a new take on him, the fact he was portrayed the exact opposite in the original trilogy with different values and views means jack, since this is a new take on him. Sorry, all your criticism is invalid."

[StaticMania]

The "real" one is obviously the source where each iteration spawns from.

And to avoid complaining about something just because it's different, you either focus on the portrayal which can't really find its footing or you just don't like a specific portrayal even if it's the most similar to the source.

[Sega DogTagz]

2 hours ago, Tarnish said:

What if we could use that for everything? "Oh, you hated how Luke Skywalker was portrayed in the sequel trilogy? Well this is a new take on him, the fact he was portrayed the exact opposite in the original trilogy with different values and views means jack, since this is a new take on him. Sorry, all your criticism is invalid."

That is a horrible comparison. Of course Luke should be portrayed in a manner consistent with his original appearance in a DIRECT SEQUEL.  Trying to compare a movie with a tangible timeline playing fast and loose with its characters has no barrings to the Sonic movie which is its own universe - not connected to anything else.

The Sonic movie is obviously not a sequel to anything, and isn't trying to insert itself into established lore. Its literally making its own. You can't mix and match arguments like that just to try and prove a point.

[Kuzu]

2 hours ago, Tarnish said:

Which again, raises the question: which one of the 'takes' is the REAL one, or is there even such a thing? Because if there isn't, all the complaints of "That isn't Sonic, they turned Sonic into a joke/comedian!" can now be just deflected with "Sit down, shut up and wait until you get a take on the character you like sometime in the future, this take on the character wasn't meant for you, you 90s kid!".

What if we could use that for everything? "Oh, you hated how Luke Skywalker was portrayed in the sequel trilogy? Well this is a new take on him, the fact he was portrayed the exact opposite in the original trilogy with different values and views means jack, since this is a new take on him. Sorry, all your criticism is invalid."

You're complaining about something that's been a trend for literally before you were born dude.

Multiple franchises have had multiple versions across multiple mediums, and they're all valid.

Golden Age Superman is not the same as Silver Age Superman, who is different from New 52 Superman.

 

Fans complain which is the "true" version, but all that translates to is preferring the version that you specifically like. Dreamcast Sonic is just as much the "true" Sonic to you as Movie!Sonic is to anyone else, and guess what, both are valid.

[Red Hot Jack]

I don't get the fuss, multiple incarnations exist all the time lol. There is no "right" one, there are the ones that are badly written, some are well written, some you may prefer based on your taste, some you may hate, there is the "original one" and "the most popular one". Key word: taste. 

I'm more annoyed by the logic of "strict true canon" tbh. I have my tastes as well, for example I dislike dark age Archie!Sonic and Boom!Sonic, because IMO they are boring takes on the character. 

Now, Movie!Sonic... he's still so young and acts like a kid, I'm not sure I like that... but, the beauty of it is that they are likely building a character arc to make him more confident and snarky, hopefully not grumpy, but still "emotive" like he is in this debut movie, he's gonna evolve, he isn't the static character SEGA uses nowadays, so I'm definitely interested in where they take Sonic in future films!

Without derailing the topic, I loved ST Luke Skywalker in TLJ, yeah I did, it was 30 years after the OT and obviously things happened, Luke is not perfect, so they gave him a cool arc that eventually led him... there, I didn't like the obvious retcon in TROS because I don't like "perfect Luke", I rather enjoyed him when he was flawed.

I'm into this debate of original incarnation vs TV adaptation since I followed Arrow on TV, he was basically the exact opposite from his comic self, but who cares, I loved him as an evolving Dark Knight type of character, because TV network wasn't allowed to use Batman himself, so they used another character, it's probably disservice to the original, yeah... but it created an awesome character IMO. Same for "adaptation original characters" like for example, Felicity. My God... the debates online... Felicity vs Black Canary as the one true love interest, it's an adaptation, frankly it worked for the story they were telling, plus Felicity is quirky and funny character IMO. 

I'm also sure that Marvel heroes and villains act differently in the movies than in the comics, can't say for sure because I only watched the movies, but yeah, people are mostly into movies now. Sorry for going off-topic.

In the end it's the attachment one person can have for the original incarnation of a character vs the incarnation another guy was introduced to said character with. Another example, I found Sonic with Sonic X, and for me that was the actual incarnation of the character, it felt Sonic to me, the only one I knew, with the complete lazy sleepy attitude, but I loved him.

 

[Sega DogTagz]

There is a whole generation (maybe two) of kids that will only be able to see Robert Downy Jr as Iron Man and Hugh Jackman as Wolverine.

Despite those not being "source" these people aren't wrong; and providing a quality alternative take on both characters doesn't harm the legacy or appeal of the IP. If anything it enriches them.

 

Bashing the Sonic movie for providing its own spin on the IP is a laughably bad take. You can choose to dislike the direction it went, but to call out the movie for not being 1 to 1 with game Sonic is hella shortsighted and defeats the entire purpose of an adaptation altogether.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

3 hours ago, Tarnish said:

What if we could use that for everything? "Oh, you hated how Luke Skywalker was portrayed in the sequel trilogy? Well this is a new take on him, the fact he was portrayed the exact opposite in the original trilogy with different values and views means jack, since this is a new take on him. Sorry, all your criticism is invalid."

Your arguements there don't hold a lick of water, since the sequel trilogy is in the same continuity as the movies, son.

That's why the bastardization of Luke's character gets called out the way it does.

35 minutes ago, Jack at the Cinema said:

I don't get the fuss, multiple incarnations exist all the time lol.

Eh, that's just Tarnish being Tarnish.

[Kuzu]

I can understand where the mindset fosters from however. One of the most common complaints about the video game incarnation of Sonic is its lack of an identity to call its own.

Whether we like it or not, the games are the base which everything else is defined. When Sonic's design was updated in 1998 with Adventure, the entire franchise had to switch to the modern design and every design since has had to adhere to that.

The video games alone are notorious for constantly switching things up and changing things around, usually to its detriment. The video game series has no idea what it is or even what it wants to be, so it's understandable that fans are a little confused on how to accurately describe the franchise, hence these debates.

[Jovahexeon Jax Joranvexeon]

28 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

I can understand where the mindset fosters from however.

Ph yeah,  a similar mindset is by no means, something new.

It's the way he badly tries to make the argument that stands out.

[Leebo4]

±does anyone else have other ideas on how the government spin on informing the public that Tom was not wanted anymore

 

maybe their scapegoat was agent stone and said he was behind the seen drone attacks and an overpowered emp device set for the blackout; their story is that Tom found evidence of his involvement and so stone framed him

 

or maybe they will say Tom was under cover helping find the source of the blackout