Sonic 2 Movie Spoiler Thread (Mostly Untagged Spoilers)

[Wraith]

10 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

Outside of Shadow having a much more defined foundation than Sonic, more or less yea. 

I don't really get this point. Shadow's backstory has a higher wordcount but he's not a more defined character than Sonic is because of this. 

Shadow's character actually went off the rails in a shorter amount of time so he's probably the less defined of the two. We already have Shadow fans in this thread begging for them not to use anything from his solo game and that was where most of the fleshing out of this essential backstory came from. That's not even getting into the archie shadow vs idw shadow stuff where people couldn't even decide how he would handle most situations 

[Kuzu]

4 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

So they can't change Shadow basically at all or there's no point in him being Shadow, and we cheer for Tails and Knuckles and the Death Egg Robot and the Tornado and Super Sonic just like in the games, and we bully the studio into changing Sonic's design to look more like he does in the games, but when it comes to his personality and identity it's just like, whatever, anything goes.

Who's "we"? You mean Nintendo Wii? I ain't see the movie yet. 

And like...what else are they supposed to do with Sonic? He has no defined backstory or origin to speak of, especially compared to the other characters you mentioned. Which is fine for a video game protagonist, but doesn't really make for an engaging film narrative (Unless its about someone else anyway) Like, why the fuck would someone who isn't a fan of Sonic already care about his personality or character if we've never seen how he got to that point?

[The Deleter]

4 minutes ago, Wraith said:

And when they change Shadow for mass appeal, you guys will nod your head because mass appeal is worth the sacrifice.

Of course,  the Sonic fanbase could always aggressively argue that Shadow's character is worthy of respect while Sonic's isn't. I guess that's nothing new.

I mean what else is new lol.

 

And yes, I've already ceded to the idea that Sonic will be closer to the portrayal in the first movie than what I want from him from the outset, in the service of 1) getting actual larger-than-life Sonic spectacle on the big screen and into the eyes of the normies to normalize that this is what Sonic can be, and 2) the potential of diving head-long into a lore-filled action adventure direction to normalize that this is what Sonic always has been, on a massive scale. I've always ceded to that since the first move, as I'd rather hope for Perfect Chaos to be made for a second movie in an IRL station square flooding than hope it die in a ditch.

 

 

however...

 

I was going to go on about how Sonic's character can actually change, and there's always the potential of him setting out on his own, especially with the set up of him being bored and cooped up in the comic...

But I asked about it in a spoiler channel and

Spoiler

Not only is Sonic still in the same role as he was at the end of the first movie, but Tails and Knuckles are now a part of the Wachowski family

I don't know about this anymore bros...

 

[Kuzu]

8 minutes ago, Wraith said:

I don't really get this point. Shadow's backstory has a higher wordcount but he's not a more defined character than Sonic is because of this. 

Shadow's character actually went off the rails in a shorter amount of time so he's probably the less defined of the two. We already have Shadow fans in this thread begging for them not to use anything from his solo game and that was where most of the fleshing out of this essential backstory came from. That's not even getting into the archie shadow vs idw shadow stuff where people couldn't even decide how he would handle most situations 

I feel like most people understand the foundation of Shadow's character at this point. Even Shadow's most vocal critics generally abide by his SA2 interpretation as the character at his most defined. The divide really comes on where his character went after SA2, and if he even should have lived past that game or not. 

Think its a safe assumption by now the movies are adapting his SA2 story for the most part. Now if he lives past the next movie and what they do with him afterward, that's when we can start biting our heads off about how he should act. 

[Dr. Mechano]

22 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

So they can't change Shadow basically at all or there's no point in him being Shadow, and we cheer for Tails and Knuckles and the Death Egg Robot and the Tornado and Super Sonic just like in the games, and we bully the studio into changing Sonic's design to look more like he does in the games, but when it comes to his personality and identity it's just like, whatever, anything goes.

Y'know, I still think the basic fundamentals of Sonic are still intact. He's still this overconfident, sassy guy who makes a bunch of quips and one-liners, and he likes to show off.

He's definitely a lot more childlike and a lot more needy in the movie than pretty much any iteration of him has ever been, and it's not a direction I'm crazy about personally, but I still think that baseline "irreverent showoff" attitude is still there.

[Diogenes]

3 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

And like...what else are they supposed to do with Sonic? He has no defined backstory or origin to speak of, especially compared to the other characters you mentioned. Which is fine for a video game protagonist, but doesn't really make for an engaging film narrative (Unless its about someone else anyway) Like, why the fuck would someone who isn't a fan of Sonic already care about his personality or character if we've never seen how he got to that point?

This isn't about being mad that they gave him a backstory, it's that the backstory they came up with and the character that resulted from it doesn't feel much like Sonic. I'm not the one taking some absolutist "this must be just like the games" position on any of the characters, I'm fully willing to accept changes and new ideas in pursuit of a better story and better versions of the characters (because, as it turns out, most Sonic writing kind of blows ass, so anyone working with the series ought to try to do better). But if they can't key in on at least some fundamentals of the character why should I, as a Sonic fan, give a shit?

[azoo]

Sonic in the games is a lot more well defined than people give him credit for. Aloof and self-reliant world adventurer that becomes a bit of a celebrity for his actions; he's free-spirited, not bound to one place or one group of people, and thinks there's always a bunch of police around when you dooon't need 'em. Sonic is his own guide, he finds his own way, and he understands himself better than any other character in the series. It's kinda why he works: he's one of the only two anchors the games have (with Eggman as the other).

Compare to emotionally vulnerable, dorky cop-lovin' Sonic who really needs a father and/or older brother figure in his life, and can't ever imagine leaving behind his friends and family in the good old Hallmark original movie locale of Green Hills, Montana, and feels like he doesn't know who he is or what he's supposed to be. It works well for the writers on board and what kinda movie they're capable of (lol), but ultimately that's a pretty far reach from what Sonic is supposed to be. And that isn't even counting the lore nonsense with bird mom and all that, but discussing that is very "been there done that".

You could argue it's fine to change up characters for new takes, and for writers to play to their strengths, but Sonic's such a far cry from what he is in the games that you might as well ask why we're doing a movie about Sonic. Except.. well, you $urely know why.

It works well for people who don't know anything about the series though. They kinda depended on that audience more than anything.

[Kuzu]

20 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

This isn't about being mad that they gave him a backstory, it's that the backstory they came up with and the character that resulted from it doesn't feel much like Sonic. I'm not the one taking some absolutist "this must be just like the games" position on any of the characters, I'm fully willing to accept changes and new ideas in pursuit of a better story and better versions of the characters (because, as it turns out, most Sonic writing kind of blows ass, so anyone working with the series ought to try to do better). But if they can't key in on at least some fundamentals of the character why should I, as a Sonic fan, give a shit?

This is kind of difficult for me to give a real answer to, so I'll try my best. 

Sonic, even in his more popular interpretations, is a very ill-defined character. Where does Sonic come from? What motivates him to act (beyond a vague sense of justice)? What journey led to his current personality and outlook? None of these questions have really been answered by the games and probably never will be. Maybe it's intentional on Sega's part to keep the intrigue around his character or maybe they just can't be fucking bothered, but the result is that the main protagonist of the franchise, is the most ill-defined character in it. 

That's fine for a video game protagonist where most people don't give a fuck about a backstory (you don't see anyone really making a big deal out of Mario's lack of a backstory) and they're generally meant to be everymen anyway. But from a writing perspective? Having such an ill-defined character be the main character isn't really going get you very far. I don't really think its a coincidence that Sonic is generally the least interesting part of any story he's in with more defined characters like Shadow or Blaze. Even in Black Knight, which is generally lauded by the fandom as one of the most defined interpretations of Sonic in the series, is still very ill-defined and mostly propped up by a bunch of generic heroic Shonen tropes, and this is something some of you reading this have agreed with. 

So what the fuck is a writer supposed to do with a character as ill-defined as Sonic, but are tasked with making an entire film with him as the central character? 

 

 

I'm not saying Movie!Sonic is some bastion of writing or anything, I have gone on record saying that his story is as by the books as they come. But there's a story to tell at least. A character who starts off lonely and insecure and slowly grows more confident as he undergoes his Heroic Journey is an arc, it's something a writer can build up to and ultimately have a climax for. As opposed to a character who...is, and exists as they are and nothing more.  Once again, that is NOT saying that I think these movies have some top tier writing, just that they've done the bare minimum of giving the main character an actual story to work with. 

[Diogenes]

3 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

So what the fuck is a writer supposed to do with a character as ill-defined as Sonic, but are tasked with making an entire film with him as the central character? 

If he needs to be more defined then define him. That's literally what I'm already saying. But define him in a way that makes sense with what's already been defined, because he isn't just a void to pour any random idea into.

[Kuzu]

6 minutes ago, azoo said:

Sonic in the games is a lot more well defined than people give him credit for. Aloof and self-reliant world adventurer that becomes a bit of a celebrity for his actions; he's free-spirited, not bound to one place or one group of people, and thinks there's always a bunch of police around when you dooon't need 'em. Sonic is his own guide, he finds his own way, and he understands himself better than any other character in the series. It's kinda why he works: he's one of the only two anchors the games have (with Eggman as the other).

I don't know if you've noticed, but all of these descriptors you've used are still rather vague and ill-defined. Why is he so aloof and distant? Did something happen to him to make him that way (Like Shadow :V) Why does he drift from place to place? What happened to his home? Why does he hate authority so much? 

This description you're using sounds less like a character and more like a force of nature. Which yea, Sonic has been described by a lot, like the wind and all that shit. And that's good for a video game character, but not very good for a protagonist who the audience are meant to relate to and see themselves in. Because last I checked, we the audience have very defined backstories and reasons for the actions that we take.

3 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

If he needs to be more defined then define him. That's literally what I'm already saying. But define him in a way that makes sense with what's already been defined, because he isn't just a void to pour any random idea into.

....Do you realize how circular this sentence sounds? 

You want Sonic's character defined...in a way that doesn't define him definitively. 

You either want him defined or you want him left open for interpretation, you can't do both. 

[azoo]

So your only idea on making a character that's "defined" is to just not do Sonic like he is in the games at all, then? Because I don't know what else you're arguing than that.

[Diogenes]

9 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

....Do you realize how circular this sentence sounds? 

You want Sonic's character defined...in a way that doesn't define him definitively. 

You either want him defined or you want him left open for interpretation, you can't do both. 

What in the hell are you talking about? Where are you getting "leave him open to intepretation" out of that post?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

This isn’t directed at anyone, but I find it funny how people are arguing over how well-defined Sonic is when his backstory has been altered multiple times even before the franchise hit its ten-year anniversary to fit whatever context he was in (one that Kuzu basically listed).

And by what definition are any of you considering him “defined?” Because only one dimension of his character is clearly defined, and that’s just his physical appearance and abilities (which they actually added to by giving him electric-like abilities). Everything else, from the games, to the comics, cartoons, and now the movie, have altered other aspects to work with what they intended in the setting (for better or worse, either of which I could not give less of a fuck over what one thinks about any them).

[Kuzu]

17 minutes ago, azoo said:

So your only idea on making a character that's "defined" is to just not do Sonic like he is in the games at all, then? Because I don't know what else you're arguing than that.

"Sonic's vague characterization works for being a video game protagonist where story isn't a priority, but does not translate very well towards a medium that relies on narrative" 

I don't really know what else I can say to make my point clear. 

16 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

What in the hell are you talking about? Where are you getting "leave him open to intepretation" out of that post?

This is what you said.

32 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

If he needs to be more defined then define him.

"If the film writers need to define Sonic, then they can do so" 

Unless I'm misinterpreting something, you're basically agreeing with the point that Sonic is an ill-defined character and agree that he needs to be defined. 

But then you said

32 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

But define him in a way that makes sense with what's already been defined

"The film writers shouldn't define him a certain way, because it doesn't align with what's already been defined" 

So now, the film writers shouldn't  define Sonic, because he does have a defined character.

 

Dude, it's after midnight where I'm at, and I just came off a 12 hour shift. I've said a lot of dumb shit since being on this site, but I like to believe my reading comprehension is pretty good. What the fuck are you trying to say? 

Either Sonic is a defined character (and thus, writers should adhere to that) or he's not defined (and thus, writers are free to take liberties). Which one is it?

6 minutes ago, CrownSlayer’s Shadow said:

This isn’t directed at anyone, but I find it funny how people are arguing over how well-defined Sonic is when his backstory has been altered multiple times even before the franchise hit its ten-year anniversary to fit whatever context he was in (one that Kuzu basically listed).

And by what definition are any of you considering him “defined?” Because only one dimension of his character is clearly defined, and that’s just his physical appearance and abilities (which they actually added to by giving him electric-like abilities). Everything else, from the games, to the comics, cartoons, and now the movie, have altered other aspects to work with what they intended in the setting (for better or worse, either of which I could not give less of a fuck one thinks about them).

Trust me, the irony has not been lost on me.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

If you wanna talk personality, Sonic is a carefree teen with a devil-may-care attitude. I’m certain that’s something we can all agree to see in him across virtually every media he’s been in, barring a few exceptions (I wouldn’t fully know, as I’m still in the dark on his character in works such as Boom and Fleetway).

But that one sentence doesn’t complete a full character. If you’re going to define any sort of character, it would help if folks knew what even makes a character to begin with.

[azoo]

10 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

"Sonic's vague characterization works for being a video game protagonist where story isn't a priority, but does not translate very well towards a medium that relies on narrative" 

I don't really know what else I can say to make my point clear. 

If your problem is that the game-verse character I described doesn't make himself open to have an entire personality arc or full backstory, then alright. Sonic in the game universe isn't built for that, admittedly.

But saying that a character needs that to be compelling means characters like Lupin III also don't work for the same reasons. He's not deep either, and he remains fairly static; he's just your goofy protag with strongly defined motivations and not much budge elsewhere. How he is used in storytelling is, like Sonic, based on in-the-moment reaction.

...And yet the stories made with him, in both show and movie format, continue to be fun and exciting! What gives? Could it be just knowing the material you're working with and not trying to round-peg-square-hole your premise into something it never was in the first place?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

13 minutes ago, azoo said:

But saying that a character needs that to be compelling means characters like Lupin III also don't work for the same reasons. He's not deep either,

Define “deep,” because I’m having doubts that what you’re thinking and what “depth” actually means in terms of character are the same thing.

I’ll help by clarifying that it doesn’t mean “complex,” for one (well, not in terms of characterization, in case someone doesn’t put more thought than a Google search over it), which tends to be the go to thought in this fandom. He’s more akin to Sly Cooper for the same reasons (backstory, motives, hell, even the demeanor), and that is a character with depth considering the very close similarities.

[Polkadi~☆]

43 minutes ago, azoo said:

Sonic in the games is a lot more well defined than people give him credit for. Aloof and self-reliant world adventurer that becomes a bit of a celebrity for his actions; he's free-spirited, not bound to one place or one group of people, and thinks there's always a bunch of police around when you dooon't need 'em. Sonic is his own guide, he finds his own way, and he understands himself better than any other character in the series. It's kinda why he works: he's one of the only two anchors the games have (with Eggman as the other).

Compare to emotionally vulnerable, dorky cop-lovin' Sonic who really needs a father and/or older brother figure in his life, and can't ever imagine leaving behind his friends and family in the good old Hallmark original movie locale of Green Hills, Montana, and feels like he doesn't know who he is or what he's supposed to be. It works well for the writers on board and what kinda movie they're capable of (lol), but ultimately that's a pretty far reach from what Sonic is supposed to be. And that isn't even counting the lore nonsense with bird mom and all that, but discussing that is very "been there done that".

You could argue it's fine to change up characters for new takes, and for writers to play to their strengths, but Sonic's such a far cry from what he is in the games that you might as well ask why we're doing a movie about Sonic. Except.. well, you $urely know why.

It works well for people who don't know anything about the series though. They kinda depended on that audience more than anything.

With Sonic's usual character clearly defined as a free spirit who goes wherever the wind takes him, I was almost hoping the movie would end with Sonic's realisation of the kind of hero he wants to be... that is, not being obligated to be a hero at all, just a guy running down his own path and helping people along the way. The Wachowski family is a place where he can rest, like Tails' Workshop is in the games, but it's not where he lives.

It feels like the perfect place to take Sonic's character, in the context of the movies and to make him closer to the games. Allow him to mature, and let him explore anywhere around the world, and become his own hero that the movie really wanted to set up for him. But he's chained to his human leads, for some reason... the reason being that a marketable actor sells tickets, obviously.

Watching the first movie felt weird knowing all this, I watched it recently with my sister and we were both unable to attach to Sonic's loneliness issues considering this is NEVER an issue for Sonic. The movie characterisation works for what it is, but it's weird if you're at all attached to Sonic's game characterisation.

[Diogenes]

2 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

Either Sonic is a defined character (and thus, writers should adhere to that) or he's not defined (and this, writers are free to take liberties). Which one is t?

...dude, it's not a fuckin binary

A character is not either completely defined or completely undefined. We know some things about Sonic. Certain things are defined. He is fast. He is blue. He hates injustice. He's friendly, but also very independent. He likes to travel the world. And there are things that are not defined. We don't know what his life was like when he was younger. We don't know why he prefers to travel than settle down and stay in one place. We don't know his preferred brand of laundry soap.

If Sonic isn't sufficiently defined for a movie, write a story that fills in the blanks, that is consistent with what is already defined, instead of throwing out what has been defined, and inserting entirely new traits.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

…so basically what they already did in the first movie then?

I’m not being sassy asking that. I’m just seeing everyone going in a complete circle over this.

[azoo]

20 minutes ago, CrownSlayer’s Shadow said:

Define “deep,” because I’m having doubts that what you’re thinking and what “depth” actually means in terms of character are the same thing.

I’ll help by clarifying that it doesn’t mean “complex,” for one (well, not in terms of characterization, in case someone doesn’t put more thought than a Google search over it), which tends to be the go to thought in this fandom. He’s more akin to Sly Cooper for the same reasons (backstory, motives, hell, even the demeanor), and that is a character with depth considering the very close similarities.

So are you going to read the point behind what I was saying or are you going to deconstruct my diction instead? You gotta be intentionally acting obtuse to hone in on the exact wording choice instead of what was being said, especially when others were catching on to my point. Some "can't see the forest through the trees" mess.

5 minutes ago, CrownSlayer’s Shadow said:

…so basically what they already did in the first movie then?

...No? What? 

No really. How does "give Sonic a more fleshed out personality and/or character arc" equate to "do Sonic completely differently from his game counterpart"? I feel like we asked this just a few posts ago, so yeah, we're definitely going in circles.

 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

2 hours ago, azoo said:

So are you going to read the point behind what I was saying or are you going to deconstruct my diction instead? You gotta be intentionally acting obtuse to hone in on the exact wording choice instead of what was being said, especially when others were catching on to my point. Some "can't see the forest through the trees" mess.

I’m going to deconstruct your diction instead, because 1) I already got the point (hence why I compounded it with Sly Cooper as a counterpoint that Lupin actually is a deep character), and 2) people should know what these terms actually mean to get better insight over what it is they’re actually talking about when they’re even making a point to begin with.

This isn’t “forest for the trees” nitpicking, this is calling out people’s actual understanding (or rather their misunderstanding) of what they’re talking about which has gone on for years. Because after actually studying this stuff, it’s clear as day people mis-equate “deep” as “complex” and “simple” as “static,” and I’m here to make it clear that’s not really true when characters like Lupin have more depth than you think in spite of being entertaining and easy to understand—or rather, being “static” doesn’t mean one lacks depth.

And if you’d rather avoid this instead, then be careful what examples you use next time. (Something you of all people should know better when it comes to people like me)

2 hours ago, azoo said:

...No? What? 

No really. How does "give Sonic a more fleshed out personality and/or character arc" equate to "do Sonic completely differently from his game counterpart"?

 

You tell me, because that is not what I was saying at all in that post.

[Wraith]

5 hours ago, CrownSlayer’s Shadow said:

 

This isn’t “forest for the trees” nitpicking,

Yes it is.

Since you guys get distracted when the arguments get too complex, let's keep it simple: Sonic should be more like he is in the games. They can pay the games lipservice by jamming iconography in all they want, but as long as they misunderstand the core of the characters there will always be fans alienated by the films.

[Kuzu]

6 hours ago, azoo said:

If your problem is that the game-verse character I described doesn't make himself open to have an entire personality arc or full backstory, then alright. Sonic in the game universe isn't built for that, admittedly.

But saying that a character needs that to be compelling means characters like Lupin III also don't work for the same reasons. He's not deep either, and he remains fairly static; he's just your goofy protag with strongly defined motivations and not much budge elsewhere. How he is used in storytelling is, like Sonic, based on in-the-moment reaction.

...And yet the stories made with him, in both show and movie format, continue to be fun and exciting! What gives? Could it be just knowing the material you're working with and not trying to round-peg-square-hole your premise into something it never was in the first place?

I wouldn't even say that I have a problem with it. I like Sonic for all of the reasons you described, but I also recognize that his character only works that way because he's a video game protagonist and I don't feel its wrong to point out that doesn't translate entirely to other mediums.

Even the Lupin example you pointed out doesn't entirely work because most of the stories don't even focus on him specifically, but rather on a new character and how Lupin's escapades intersect with their story...kind of like how more story driven Sonic games focus on another character's story as opposed to Sonic himself.

Its like I pointed out, Sonic himself is often the least interesting part of these stories with the focus being on another character and how they react to him (Sally, Shadow, Chris, Blaze, etc etc)

Now if you're saying that you wanted a Sonic movie that doesn't actually focus on Sonic then *shrug*

6 hours ago, Diogenes said:

...dude, it's not a fuckin binary

A character is not either completely defined or completely undefined. We know some things about Sonic. Certain things are defined. He is fast. He is blue. He hates injustice. He's friendly, but also very independent. He likes to travel the world. And there are things that are not defined. We don't know what his life was like when he was younger. We don't know why he prefers to travel than settle down and stay in one place. We don't know his preferred brand of laundry soap.

If Sonic isn't sufficiently defined for a movie, write a story that fills in the blanks, that is consistent with what is already defined, instead of throwing out what has been defined, and inserting entirely new traits.

Movie Sonic is blue, fast, hates injustice, and is friendly. Plus we do know what he was like when he was younger. So based on that, we can conclude that movie!Sonic is in fact a close approximation of Sonic and they did not in fact throw out anything :V

 

On a serious note, yea it's not a binary issue, but the fact we're even having this conversation shows that Sonic's character is more interpretive than people are willing to admit. There's @Dr. Mechano post which points out how he feels the fundamentals of Sonic's character are still intact, and that's from an Eggman fanboy.

I feel like this division about Sonic's character is generally the result of fans just having their own specific interpretation of his character. Even ignoring Movie!Sonic for a second, fans have been arguing about Sonic's character as far back as 1999 when Sonic Adventure jettisoned the American continuity. Even shit as recently as Rise of the Wisps had people at each other's throats over if Sonic was being too mean and not caring enough. And that was a harmless 12 minute short which sparked that reaction.

If the fanbase, most which who claim to be "Sonic experts" cannot agree on how defined Sonic's character is, how the fuck are a bunch of film producers who have probably barely touched a game supposed to understand him?

[Tenko]

Warning - Personal Opinion Incoming

Went to Sonic 2 this morning and while I was pleased that they amped up the actual game related material, it still didn't quite "feel" like it was Sonic still, much like the first movie. It's hard to describe. Like while it uses elements from the IP it still "feels" like it could have been anything if you replaced the maguffins and the four characters from the game.

While less than the first they are still leaning heavily on the Hollywood star cast and their extended family. Might just be me but I don't go to a Sonic movie to see the wedding antics of star cast and their sister, regardless of how good each individual actor may be usually. I just don't care about them at all. I've come to see Sonic not Tom and Maddie in Hawaii.

Where the movie series is heading hasn't really gotten any better either. It seemed like it was heading in the right direction based on the trailers, but after watching it I don't really think it did much better than the first besides shoving in more game fanservice. The ending of the movie as well as seeing

Spoiler

Shadow

in the post credits scene didn't get me excited at all either. Not just because I dislike him as a character, and thought Metal would have been a much better fit, but because it gives them even more reason to stay away from Sonic's world and carry on exactly the way they are.

Unless my kids want to see it I don't think I'll be seeing the third movie in the cinemas based on how I came away from this one.