Why don't you take Sonic seriously?

[Tara]

I'm just finding it odd that some people are using tropes that have been the staple of every children's cartoon since the late 70's and early 80's as the basis for an argument suggesting the Badniks were meant to appeal to older audiences.  Ninja Turtles '87 had more intimidating enemy designs than 90's Sonic ever had, and I've never heard a single person claim that show was aimed at anyone other than kids. (On the contrary, the fact that the show was such a heavy departure from the darker and more mature Mirage comics that came before it yielded quite the controversy amongst fans)  The only thing the "scary" looking Badniks achieve in terms of maturity is assuring that the series isn't aimed at babies still fresh from their mother's womb.  Ignoring all other problems with the overall argument, I think we're forgetting that there are different stages of children's entertainment and that children from a very young age can get handle a little bit of action.  Sonic really doesn't push any boundaries in this regard when operating under normal circumstances.

That's not to say that these elements can't be used to tell a story that takes itself reasonably seriously.  We have Disney, Pixar, and select Dreamworks films that show that even the most colorful and saccharine of titles can tell stories that speak to people across all different generations.  But that doesn't mean that children aren't still obviously and unabashedly their primary demographic.  The secret is in good writing and relatable characters, not in aiming for any specific age range.

[havikinazuma]

1 hour ago, ShroomZed said:

I put Sonic on about the same level of seriousness as Rocko's Modern Life or Animaniacs. It's a cartoon. 

In reference to what though Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog, where it mostly slapstick. Forget the old cartoons, and think of mostly the games only. What give you that impression? Again, is the anthro animal characters?

[Osmium]

9 minutes ago, havikinazuma said:

In reference to what though Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog, where it mostly slapstick. Forget the old cartoons, and think of mostly the games only. What give you that impression? Again, is the anthro animal characters.

The explicitly silly designs of the characters does have something to do with it, but the plot and setting just aren't serious stuff dude.

Actually you know, this isn't a one way street. If you want to ask us why we don't take Sonic that seriously, I want to ask why do YOU take it seriously? Where in any of the classic games or Adventure 1 or anything after the dark age do you get the impression that this is supposed to be a serious series? 

[Salamander]

Early Sonic can only be viewed as "serious" through the power of immersion.  The classics are garish and cartoony, the principal characters absurd in conception.  It's a step above certain self-indulgent parodies, but only a step, that's all.  But because you were a child, and because you were deeply invested in the game's progression, then you became immersed in the fiction, and you started to take it seriously - or rather, you were able to look past the inherent ridiculousness and accept the world without reference to the preconceptions of reality.  In a way, that's a good thing; that the games were able to create that effect shows that they were well-designed.  But you also have to remain aware of the surface level outside of your perception of it; the real, objective version which is given to everyone, not the subjective interpretation of a player who cares deeply.  There are many works of fiction like this, where the tone changes wildly the more you care.

I wonder, sometimes, if the developers also fell into this same trap; if they lost their self-awareness of the essential silliness of what they were creating, forgot to balance the outside of the world and the inside.

[Osmium]

2 minutes ago, FFWF said:

Early Sonic can only be viewed as "serious" through the power of immersion.  The classics are garish and cartoony, the principal characters absurd in conception.  It's a step above certain self-indulgent parodies, but only a step, that's all.  But because you were a child, and because you were deeply invested in the game's progression, then you became immersed in the fiction, and you started to take it seriously - or rather, you were able to look past the inherent ridiculousness and accept the world without reference to the preconceptions of reality.  In a way, that's a good thing; that the games were able to create that effect shows that they were well-designed.  But you also have to remain aware of the surface level outside of your perception of it; the real, objective version which is given to everyone, not the subjective interpretation of a player who cares deeply.  There are many works of fiction like this, where the tone changes wildly the more you care.

I wonder, sometimes, if the developers also fell into this same trap; if they lost their self-awareness of the essential silliness of what they were creating, forgot to balance the outside of the world and the inside.

That's exactly what makes Sonic great, or at least did. The entire concept and setting is ridiculous, but if you're willing you can play on it's level you'll have a great time while still having a good laugh. It's kinda like how UK Top Gear used to be, it was completely ridiculous and meant to be laughed at but it immersed you and you were always rooting for something to happen despite it explicitly being ridiculous and laughable. It's one of those things where you're SUPPOSED to laugh and not take it too seriously, but you could always get into it and have some level of passion. It's actually sorta amazing that way. 

[havikinazuma]

1 minute ago, ShroomZed said:

The explicitly silly designs of the characters does have something to do with it, but the plot and setting just aren't serious stuff dude.

Actually you know, this isn't a one way street. If you want to ask us why we don't take Sonic that seriously, I want to ask you why do YOU take it seriously? Where in any of the classic games or Adventure 1 do you get the impression that this is supposed to be a real serious series? 

As I said in the OP, I've seen plenty of series take a light-hearted role, until something major in which things have to take a more buckled down approach. I look at Lost World, as a game with no real conflict, as the Deadly Six, can and have gotten MOLLYWOPPED by Sonic,. Hell, I believe Classic Sonic would have no problems here. It was a game with little conflict, and might as well be non-canon. Since Zavok is in Sonic Force, bunk to that. Sonic didn't even need Super Sonic.

Back on Topic, I don't mean, Serious as in all around character death, or something overly edgy, but just a story ,thaty challenges Sonic to show off the best of his abilities. To be honest, I have waaaaaaayy more respect for Adventure Eggman, than current, as he came off a bit threatening. Because of Eggman, a city was destroyed by Chaos, and he held the whole world at gun point, while demonstrated his capabilities by blowing up half of the FREAKING MOON!!!  

By "Serious" in my book, I need something to truly test him, or challenge him. Like Chaos, Shadow, or5 hell even Dark Gaia. The Unleashed opening, should be the template of what the Sonic movie should be like IMO.

You asked me about the Classic games and SA1, I'll say the classics(especially Sonic 1) for the backgrounds of the stages, and how environments changes , and and enemies faced. SA1 started Sonic on a Japanese anime route, and had dialog and back story for lost echina clans, and sad yet happy moments such E102 gamma etc. THe signs were there, but there were a lot of introduction to  the new personalities of the main cast.

[Daisy]

No Sonic game has ever had a story good enough to appreciate. The only good Sonic games are good for their gameplay, not the events that happen. The classic games, for example, barely have a story at all, but are often considered to be the best in the series. Sonic is a gameplay-based series.

Adventure 1 tried to embrace the fact that the premise of the series is silly, as evidenced by the cartoony animations, but it went a bit overboard with it.

[Kuzu]

13 minutes ago, havikinazuma said:

As I said in the OP, I've seen plenty of series take a light-hearted role, until something major in which things have to take a more buckled down approach. I look at Lost World, as a game with no real conflict, as the Deadly Six, can and have gotten MOLLYWOPPED by Sonic,. Hell, I believe Classic Sonic would have no problems here. It was a game with little conflict, and might as well be non-canon. Since Zavok is in Sonic Force, bunk to that. Sonic didn't even need Super Sonic.

Back on Topic, I don't mean, Serious as in all around character death, or something overly edgy, but just a story ,thaty challenges Sonic to show off the best of his abilities. To be honest, I have waaaaaaayy more respect for Adventure Eggman, than current, as he came off a bit threatening. Because of Eggman, a city was destroyed by Chaos, and he held the whole world at gun point, while demonstrated his capabilities by blowing up half of the FREAKING MOON!!!  

By "Serious" in my book, I need something to truly test him, or challenge him. Like Chaos, Shadow, or5 hell even Dark Gaia. The Unleashed opening, should be the template of what the Sonic movie should be like IMO.

You asked me about the Classic games and SA1, I'll say the classics(especially Sonic 1) for the backgrounds of the stages, and how environments changes , and and enemies faced. SA1 started Sonic on a Japanese anime route, and had dialog and back story for lost echina clans, and sad yet happy moments such E102 gamma etc. THe signs were there, but there were a lot of introduction to  the new personalities of the main cast.

 I don't really see "serious" in Sonics classic games. Am I missing something?

[Osmium]

41 minutes ago, Kuzu the Boloedge said:

 I don't really see "serious" in Sonics classic games. Am I missing something?

No one does, except for people who are kidding themselves frankly. 

[Wraith]

1 hour ago, havikinazuma said:

 

Back on Topic, I don't mean, Serious as in all around character death, or something overly edgy, but just a story ,thaty challenges Sonic to show off the best of his abilities.

I think this is a reasonable thing to ask for. It hasn't happened in ages.

Imo, the core thing missing from the modern games doesn't actually have to do with the tone all that much at all. They lack sincerity. They're constantly tapping you on the shoulder and reminding you that you shouldn't be too into what's going on here. 

It's the type of writing that you see a lot nowadays in hollywood blockbusters and stuff. The MCU for example takes a sort of half-parody approach to everything where they portray completely serious events on the surface level but undercut everything with a joke. Ever since I had this pointed out to me I can't stop thinking about how it applies to Sonic and the jokes aren't particularly well written so it sticks out even more. Sonic games can be lighthearted or even funny without being what the modern games are. Self awareness can be a good thing sometimes but can imply a severe lack of confidence other times. 

[Tyranno]

5 hours ago, Tara said:

I'm just finding it odd that some people are using tropes that have been the staple of every children's cartoon since the late 70's and early 80's as the basis for an argument suggesting the Badniks were meant to appeal to older audiences.  Ninja Turtles '87 had more intimidating enemy designs than 90's Sonic ever had, and I've never heard a single person claim that show was aimed at anyone other than kids. (On the contrary, the fact that the show was such a heavy departure from the darker and more mature Mirage comics that came before it yielded quite the controversy amongst fans)  The only thing the "scary" looking Badniks achieve in terms of maturity is assuring that the series isn't aimed at babies still fresh from their mother's womb.  Ignoring all other problems with the overall argument, I think we're forgetting that there are different stages of children's entertainment and that children from a very young age can get handle a little bit of action.  Sonic really doesn't push any boundaries in this regard when operating under normal circumstances.

That's not to say that these elements can't be used to tell a story that takes itself reasonably seriously.  We have Disney, Pixar, and select Dreamworks films that show that even the most colorful and saccharine of titles can tell stories that speak to people across all different generations.  But that doesn't mean that children aren't still obviously and unabashedly their primary demographic.  The secret is in good writing and relatable characters, not in aiming for any specific age range.

What I'm trying to say is that they engage with the series in a complete different way than, say, a certain rival franchise's stock bad guys do. They're still cartoonish in many ways, but they're flashier and more threatening. The rest of what you said is something I actually agree with and still think most of what's done with Modern Sonic is still very much in line with.

EDIT - here, let's do a comparison:

 

Here's two different approaches to a cartoon ladybug monster. Both are aimed at the same general demographic, both exist in the video game sphere, both have the same conceptual basis. And while the one on the left isn't exactly "cool and adult" than  the one on the right, he's not as soft and cuddly looking as his counterpart either. Tentomon is a bit cute, but there's a sharpness to his design that the round and pillowy design on the right doesn't have. 

Neither of these are bad designs and they're both unequivocally targeted towards children. In fact, a youngster might like them both equally. But they try to stand out in very different ways. And these different designs also play into how both franchises respectively approach storytelling as well (and 20 years later, the difference isn't as stark as you might think, either).

Now let's look at Motobug and his closest Mario equivalent, the Biddybugs, another set of "ladybug monsters". Very different designs in the end, sure, but Motobug's design philosophy is closer to Tentomon's than it is Ledyba's, and vice versa. Barring extremes that lean hard in other directions like in Lost World which almost feel like they're overcompensating sometimes, this is is consistent with most approach'es to Motobug's design.

[Meta77]

A dark story can be done I love sonic regardless but a main reason is I think Sega is just scared to well scare their fans with a dark story.

[Tara]

That's fair.  The wording of your argument threw me off is all.

But I still disagree.  I still don't necessarily think Motobug is that different from Biddybugs or any Mario enemy.  They're still about on the same level of cutesy and not much would exactly separate them in terms of presentation or how serious they appear to be.

I mean, some of the facial expressions should be pretty telling of the tonality they're supposed to take on.

I can't help but smile looking at this stupid goober.  By comparison, Mario has enemies like Dry Bones who, while not terrifying, have a much more ominous presence, especially in the older games where they lack facial details.

The problem with using Tentomon and Ledyba as examples is that they have different contexts they need to convey.  Their design is less indicative of the tonality of the game, but the genre.  Digimon and Pokémon are games about battling monsters, so emphasizing that these monsters can fight is important for their design.  Motobug and Biddybugs not so much.  The information they convey in their design is tailored to the context of platforming, so I don't put them exactly in the same category.

[Tyranno]

I look at those Dry Bones sprites and they all look incredibly goofy. I mean, the SMW one has buck teeth.

But like, even the scarier Mario villains like Petey Piranha are round and soft looking.

Neutron isn't exactly grim and gritty but he's also got a lean design and his appearance implies sneakiness. I can see him going either way on the design scale.

[Tara]

But none of that implies any added levels of seriousness, either.  And again the Badniks have the same traits as Mario enemies.  Even the more intimidating ones are still goofy looking.

[Tyranno]

I think we're focusing on "seriousness" in the wrong way here. I'm talking about the ways the characters are designed and what they say about the kinds of things that can be done with them. And I'm not saying badniks can't be goofy-looking either, I just think they lean in a different direction most of the time. Dry Bones are like a kids' Halloween Party decoration. Their closest Sonic equivalent, the Boos from SA2 onward, are more twisted and warped looking in comparison while still being extremely cartoony. Both are ultimately gonna lean harder towards softer storytelling than most media, but I can still see the Boos being scary to a degree in a certain context - and they did just that in Sonic X, even.

[Tara]

But even in that context I don't see them as that any different as Mario baddies.  They both just look like children's Halloween decorations to me.  Literally no better or worse than Boos from Mario.

[Tyranno]

The Boos from Mario are round with simple features; at worst, the scariest thing they're given is red sclera.

The Boos from Sonic Adventure have sunken eyes, manic grins full of sharp teeth, and some of them are shown with mouths that are stiched closed.

Neither are hard horror, but the latter variety looks more like something out of Beetlejuice. They're definitely creepy in a way that the other Boos aren't.

[Wittymations]

Sonic is that franchise who should handle more adventurous storylines with exaggerations. Take the GUN truck chasing him in SA2. He's being chased by the military with a truck that is SO LARGE that it feels up BOTH sides of the street and has no problem running over pedestrian vehicles. It's dumb, hilarious and at the same time, kinda cool in a cheesy way. Generations turned that up with saws, driving on the wall, and ROCKETS.

 

Take the serious elements and just exaggerate the hell out of them to a near comical point.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Depends on how you use the franchises world, characters, and other elements and the degree of how much you can push to make things work in a serious fashion. It can work, but you can't just put Sonic in a setting like Final Fantasy and expect it to do well akin to how they tried that in Sonic 06.

Quote

I put Sonic on about the same level of seriousness as Rocko's Modern Life or Animaniacs. It's a cartoon. 

What does being a cartoon have to do with how serious a work can be? Because that's a ridiculously narrow benchmark to use two silly cartoons as a standard to a broad and diverse medium.

[rosedust]

It's a video game to me. I don't really take any games too seriously. I get why people are passionate about it (and if you are, go for it) but that's just not me. It's probably why I never got too mad at all of Sonic's "blunders", cause I usually don't take Sonic seriously and I feel like that factors into my enjoyment of the series as a whole. 

[Tara]

7 hours ago, Razorsaw said:

They're definitely creepy in a way that the other Boos aren't.

Not really?  Just not really?

The design isn't scarier.  It's just different.

[Salamander]

There is a difference in design complexity between certain comparable series, but whether or not this correlates significantly with "seriousness" is a little bit more difficult to say.  Partly it's the theme, after all; if you're designing a mechanical ladybird, there's a slightly higher bar for necessary detail because you have more that it's necessary to convey.  I do think that Digimon is pitched at slightly older ages than Pokemon, but there are also different contextual requirements there; Digimon is generally ostensibly set in the real world, or rather in a related real and parallel world, so a lot of the monsters designs are a mingling of the cartoony and real so that they won't look tremendously out-of-place in scenes which we're supposed to recognise as taking place in our world.  Pokemon, on the other hand, takes place in a world that is clearly fictional and fantastic, so the same goals don't apply.  With that said, the comparison to Ledyba in particular is a little bit misleading considering that Pokemon designs have also become more complex over time as they've been presented on more advanced hardware!  Whereas the initial Digimon digital pets were so primitive that you had to accept them as a massive abstraction from the art anyway, and the franchise was led by anime and cards from early on, so there was never really that great a need to base design complexity around hardware limitations.

Additionally, I think we have to acknowledge that sometimes "more serious" does not necessarily mean "serious"; you can have different stratifications of cartoony and cute and silly.  Dr. Eggman's robots in most of the games are definitely meant to look visually appealing and only threatening in a relatively safe and fantastic way.  I don't think it's controversial to say that we're looking at a relative spectrum of silliness to seriousness rather than a binary of Mario on the one hand and Silent Hill on the other.  You might have enemies on the one hand that would scare nobody, enemies on the other that would scare everybody, and enemies in-between that would scare small children and nobody else.  It might also be instructive to look at the Sandopolis ghosts; Hyudoros, I think?  As the level gets darker, their appearance recognisably grows more threatening; they get bigger, develop horns.  But, outside of the game, are they actually objectively threatening?  Not at all, they're silly sheet ghosts, but we can recognise the design coding for "threat" and accept that fiction - and when we become immersed in the game, identifying with Sonic and not wanting to be set back, we might indeed fear the Hyudoros, in a way.  But we're not going to have nightmares about them.

The contextual frame of reference is nonetheless I think a vital element.  I think we can fairly describe Mario as a kind of anything-goes fantasy which is meant to be truly safe for all ages, so most of the enemies for a long time have been terribly adorable.  Sonic, on the other hand, has always had the mechanical angle as a vital element, and while to a certain degree you can abstract that and make it colourful (Sonic CD is incredible at this), it's always going to require a certain amount of detail.  Sonic is not an anything-goes fantasy and it maintains a little bit more of a pretence of internal coherency than Mario - or at least, it accepts more constraints in the aim of defining its identity.  I don't know quite how I'd class that identity; to some extent it's a fantasy, but it doesn't have magic or wizards (except in the context of the Storybook games, which are explicitly a different universe and genre), and there's a more mystical, shall we say, aura to the Chaos Emeralds; the way these artifacts can be integrated with mechanical devices, too, gives the series an ever-so-faint scientific element.  It's not our world by a long chalk, but it has a little more in common with our world than Mario does (Odyssey notwithstanding).  This is part of the reason why Lost World (and I suppose Shadow) got so much flak.  In Sonic, if it's not mechanical or a furry, or even for a time a giant god-monster, then what is it?  This is why people criticised the Deadly Six as resembling Mario enemies; there wasn't any precedent for that kind of design choice in the Sonic universe, no context or frame of reference.

...In conclusion, there are I think lines distinguishing many of the designs discussed above, clear lines.  Clear but fine.

[Mangoaxe5]

As someone who's favorite parts of the franchise are Satam, pre-reboot Archie Sonic, Adventure 1&2, and the Shadow game, in recent years I've wondered about this as well.

I still think that a Sonic game with a serious story can work, but would the general gaming public accept another Sonic game with a darker story.

[Big-C]

I'd rather have an adventurous story. Like Adventure 1, Unleashed, or even Black Knight . I like Adventure 2's story, but the darker tone felt a bit too out of place though. A 12 year old girl getting shot by the military and a mad scientist getting shot to death by a firing squad? Um.. are you sure we're talking about a Sonic the hedgehog story. Anyway, an adventurous story with a balanced tone is the way to go, in my opinion. But I think problem is the writers they hire. They should definitely hire Ian Flynn. He knows how to write drama and comedy without going too far with either.