What are you thinking? (Part 2)
- Thread starter Romero
- Start date
Rain611
You can't kill me.
Yea. Basically at this point since I never went to the doctor, they get so bad sometimes that they perforate which basically means I have a tear in my stomach and have to go to the hospital. It is the worst pain I've ever felt. I can't eat to the point of fullness, have very low tolerance for liquids (I have to sip whatever I drink or I feel sick), I can't eat within 2 hours of lying down and I can't have grease, salt, tomatoes, too much fat, caffeine, etc. I have meds for maintenance if I feel like I messed up at some point but they don't always work and they take a long time to heal.
KennedyKiller
Super Saiyan Member
I think delaying the Sonic movie is a good idea if it gives the consumers a more polished product we can be happy with. And with it being on Valentines day, nerd couples will have something to do XD
https://io9.gizmodo.com/its-official-the-sonic-the-hedgehog-movie-is-being-pus-1835006775
https://io9.gizmodo.com/its-official-the-sonic-the-hedgehog-movie-is-being-pus-1835006775
Turo602
The King of Kings
As much as I applaud them for taking fan feedback this serious, (though, the pessimist in me still just thinks this was done out of fear of the movie bombing) Sonic's design was a symptom of a much larger problem with the film. Fixing his design isn't gonna make the film any better. It's just gonna be a better looking Sonic (if that) in a horrible film with Cyclops, Jim Carrey, the military and other humans.
KennedyKiller
Super Saiyan Member
Eh, I disagree. But then again, I didn't have any issue with Sonic's design in the first place, and thought the film looked pretty good.
Turo602
The King of Kings
KennedyKiller
Super Saiyan Member
Lol, character attitude wise, they seemed like they got him down fine. His voice acting isn't bad. They got his spin attack looking good. All in all, are there things I'd change? Yeah, definitely. But I don't think it looked near as bad as people said.
Turo602
The King of Kings
He literally looks like a parody of the character you'd see on something like The Simpsons or Family Guy that looks so bad yet is so hilarious because you can tell what it's a parody of. They literally had no reason to alter him like they did, and the only reason they did it was because Hollywood has no faith in a "children's video game character", but understands the nostalgic value in it, so they went ahead and repackaged it because they didn't believe in the success of the source material just like with Transformers, Ninja Turtles, and Power Rangers. A Sonic the Hedgehog movie had no business being live action and I knew once they went that direction, that it would be a trainwreck. Only Hollywood could see stuff like this:
KennedyKiller
Super Saiyan Member
Eh...I disagree with nearly all of that. I just genuinely think they went with the design they did because they were trying to make him look as realistic as possible, while keeping his identity there. Personally, I think they succeeded at that. However, what they didn't understand is that's not what fans wanted. Now that they realized we didn't want the "realistic" character, we want our cartoony fun, they're doing what they should do and change it. I don't believe for a second they don't have faith in the the idea. Detective Pikachu is proof Hollywood has faith in Children's video games. As for TMNT, I'm not sure what you're talking about. 2 of the 3 90's ones were great. The CGI "TMNT" was a blast as well. Really, only the modern "Dark and Gritty" ones have been bad, and that's because someone had a dumbass idea as a cash grab. But that's not indicative of TMNT movies as a whole. And if anything, TMNT is the most faithful to the source material, and it's the oldest film franchise in your list. The TMNT source material actually IS dark and gritty. TMNT comics were straight up not for kids. And the OG 90's movies followed the comics WAY closer than the 80's childrens show. And even the new movies, while not using the comics stories per se, brought in Peter Laird and Kevin Eastman, the ACTUAL creators, to write the dialogue for the turtles. You don't get much closer to source material than actually having the guys themselves work on the movies.
Turo602
The King of Kings
The fact that they started production on a Sonic movie and looked at the character and said "his design doesn't work in real life, let's make him "realistic" so he can work," is them saying they didn't have faith in the material. Detective Pikachu had the right people behind it, which isn't indicative of Hollywood as a whole. Just like Deadpool wasn't indicative of Fox's mentality with the X-Men movies, which were so ashamed of the source material that they kept throwing Wolverine in our face and never gave them their costumes because "it doesn't look right." Something the MCU would later prove to be bullsh*t. That's what happens when Hollywood suits stick their noses in movies. Fox with X-Men. WB with how horribly they have been dictating the DCEU. Hell, look at the Resident Evil films. That's what Hollywood does to material they don't have faith in. They mold it and change it into something they think will gel with movie goers, not the niche video game, comic, or cartoon audience. Just look at all the horrible ideas and scripts for Spider-Man movies in the 80s and 90s before Sam Raimi, a Spider-Man fan, took the material seriously and was given a shot by Sony. Same thing happened with Ninja Turtles in the 90s. Nobody had faith in the material and it was turned down numerous times until New Line Cinema gave them a shot. These were all budget films nobody believed in, based on iconic properties, and once they proved how much money they could make, that's when studios take control of their little money machines and we end up with Spider-Man 3, The Amazing Spider-Man series, and those atrocious Ninja Turtles films. And obviously, I was referencing the new ones.
KennedyKiller
Super Saiyan Member
This sentence here is where I disagree the most. Because we're talking Aesthetics here. Yes, if it's gonna be a CGI/Live Action Crossover (Which I think is the best move considering Sonic Adventure and onward), then they have to make sure the CGI looks JUST realistic enough to co-exist in the world, while keeping true to the source material. It's a fine line to walk. And even Detective Pikachu had to make some MAJOR concessions on a few Pokemon. From an artistic perspective of "Does this look good in the world we have built," I think they actually made the right move. I think, with the redesign, we're gonna get something that actually sticks out worse as being more cartoon-y, but truer to the source material, and that's both good and bad. It will be aesthetically jarring, and won't actually mesh as well with the world the movie tries to establish, but will please fans who wanna see something identical to the game they played. It's just like books to movies. You're going to HAVE to make concessions. Take Ready Player One for example. The book and movie are both god damn incredible...But the movie actually jacked a lot of what was in the book up. That said...as a MOVIE it still worked. Really well. It's not about being unable to believe in it. It's about what will fit this completely different medium better.
Also, I'd like to add, in video games, everything is CG...obviously. But that's not how it's supposed to be in that world itself. Humans are human. Buildings are man made. Cars exist. And Sonic is a humanoid animal. So the MAJORITY of Sonic's world...Looks like ours in canon. Of course it makes sense to do it in Live Action
Last edited:
Turo602
The King of Kings
Your entire argument is no different than the Hollywood execs who turned down Spider-Man, Ninja Turtles, and didn't want to use colorful costumes in X-Men because they don't "work" in film. That's an argument I will never believe holds any water, especially when it comes to trying to make a talking, super fast, anthropomorphic, blue hedgehog "realistic." This isn't an aesthetic problem, it's his entire design. Sonic with one eyeball is a design choice. Sonic with 2 eyeballs is a design choice. Either way, neither one is real and can't look more realistic than the other. The problem isn't that they added texture to him, it's his whole design. All the Pokemon in Detective Pikachu are faithfully designed, they just don't have flat textures because it isn't a cartoon or video game where even humans are smooth textured.
...What?
Last edited:
KennedyKiller
Super Saiyan Member
When you say it's a problem with his design as a whole...What are you referring to. So I know specifically what's being argued before I form an argument.
Turo602
The King of Kings
...Do you not know what Sonic looks like? Just look at that thing in the trailer and look at Sonic.
KennedyKiller
Super Saiyan Member
Lol, I'm a HUGE Sonic fan. And honestly...He looks better in that than he did in the 90's cartoons. IDK. I just wasn't bothered with his design save for the lack of gloves. That was my biggest complaint
Turo602
The King of Kings
He looked rough in the 90s cartoons, but what cartoon then didn't? And hell no, Sonic in that movie doesn't look better than any incarnation of Sonic. Not even Sanic. At least Sanic has heart behind it. Movie Sonic is just an abomination. There's been far better fan redesigns online since the leak and trailer and just comparing them to the movie shows you all the flaws movie Sonic has. He honestly looks disgusting. I'd shoot him if I saw him in my yard. Regular Sonic on the other hand, I'd think twice.
KennedyKiller
Super Saiyan Member
The fan redesigns totally look more like Sonic. I agree...But they don't look like what Sonic would look like, where he in our world.
Turo602
The King of Kings
What exactly does Sonic look like in our world? Sonic isn't real. Whoever came up with that awful design sure as f*ck doesn't know either. Sonic isn't from our world, so making him look like a real man in a onsie is retarded. Sonic is Sonic and he doesn't need to be changed to "fit" into our world. Just like Pokemon didn't need to change. Just like the Looney Tunes didn't need to change. The Smurfs, the Ninja Turtles, etc.
Jen
Girly Gamer
Sorry KK, but I have to disagree with you here.
I think it's comparing two different things when you're talking about making concessions between a book and a movie, and comparing how a video game character looks in a movie. Yes, there are concessions to be made in book-to-screen adaptations, but with books, there's very rarely a visual element. Everything is created in the reader's imagination, and not all events from a book can be included in a movie, purely because it would cost too much and the movie would be too long.
When it comes to something as fundamental as to how a character looks in a video-game-to-movie adaptation, concessions can't really be made. The character has to look as iconic as it does in the game. Yes, of course, it's an adaptation so you can't just plonk a CGI character in a live-action world, but the recreation has to be very, very similar to the original. It's only natural that there are going to be complaints if it's too different.
I don't think we can even use the excuse of saying it's what Sonic would look like were he in our world, purely because in real life, there's no such thing as alien, sneaker-wearing blue hedgehogs that run at the speed of sound. Nobody is going to think 'Oh, this is what alien, super-fast, sneaker-wearing blue hedgehogs that run at the speed of sound look like in reality' because there's no such thing. Therefore, you have to go with the visual that people have already because that's all they know. That's all they can relate it to. That's what their nostalgia and love of the character are based upon. If you're making a movie, you can't just take the most basic elements of Sonic (i.e. that he's blue and wears sneakers) and morph it into something else entirely.
I think the design of Sonic was awful. For some reason, they really elongated his body, but reduced the big facial features of Sonic's that we know and love. He just looks very weird, and as @Turo602 said above, there are fan creations that are way more true to Sonic but also don't look out of place. I mean, I'm not gonna watch the movie anyway because I think it looks terrible (Jim Carrey is just so cringey as Eggman), and I don't like the whole 'let's make this movie about the human world and make a story about Sonic bend to it' approach. But when it comes to a fundamental thing like how Sonic looks, it has to be done right.
Last edited:
Springhosen
Kahnum of Outworld
As a Sonic fan, probably one of the first games I EVER played, I know which one I'd rather go see.
That is all.