Sonic the Hedgehog Movie Trailer #2

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

well the redesigns finally happened. discuss.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pERXVqS54XE&t

Kinda looks like that character from a video game.

You know, the one with the trailer panned for the character design, set to gangster's paradise? Yeah, they just dropped a new trailer with the updated design.

And credit where it's due, that looks a lot better. I'm still definitely not the target audience, but my compliments to the redesign team all the same.

I dunno. Sonic has improved, sure. But Robotnik still looks way off. Did they not re-CGI him too?

Even if I were a fan I would give this movie a pass just for the way Jim Carrey acts in the trailer alone. It's like he's playing this character as Ace Ventura but an evil scientist with robots. The last time I found Ace Ventura funny, or even tolerable, I was twelve at the absolute oldest.

Hey, the talking cartoon animal looks like a talking cartoon animal, and not some horrifying blue hogchild. It's a little different from the actual modern Sonic Design, but still instantly recognizable.

Pretty sure the movie's still gonna suck tho. None of the jokes landed for me. Watching Jim Carrey voraceously chew scenery might be entertaining tho.

Now people are complaining that it no longer will be a "so bad it's good" movie, but just a "plain-flavored bad" movie...

*sigh*

It's stil a Sonic the Hedgehog movie though.

2 threads merged.

OT:
Those horrible teeth have been toned back, which is good. And he's wearing gloves now, so those horrible fingers are gone as well.
Also, no more Gangsta's Paradise.

CaitSeith:
Now people are complaining that it no longer will be a "so bad it's good" movie, but just a "plain-flavored bad" movie...

*sigh*

Can't please everyone. Honestly, I never cared for people who go way overboard on the I like it ironically, or "so bad it's good". Even "so bad it's good" can get boring or aggravating at times.

I think the movie will be just okay, but it should have been animated. I'd prefer 2D, but we all know that is not going to happen, so 3D would have been fine. Imagine this, but on the big screen:

Well that looks terrible, but at least Sonic isn't a horror movie monster now.

Honestly, they probably had this design in the movie the entire time and just made up the monster design for the trailer to get people talking.

CoCage:

I think the movie will be just okay, but it should have been animated. I'd prefer 2D, but we all know that is not going to happen, so 3D would have been fine. Imagine this, but on the big screen:

Why they don't just make these things animated when it would be 100 times better received and just as much cheaper to do in the bargain I have no idea. Whenever something that wasn't to begin with is made into live action it's always considered decent at best and absolutely horrible at worst and in either case nowhere near as good as the source material. Plus there's the fact that they can never and likely never will even with the absolute best of effects do anything in live action that animation 2D or 3D couldn't do better, and that's if it can be done in live action at all.

I think a few others had the same idea as me that this was the best marketing campaign that ever was. And here we are, with the pay off.

Millions of people are going to go see this. Me, as a Nintendo Fanboy growing up feel nothing for it. But there are so many people praising the new redesign that I feel this is going to be one of the most successful video game movies of all time just due to a crappy trailer a few months back.

Manipulation at its finest.

Still looks bad, but now everyone is tricked into thinking it is not so bad because it is not as bad as it was, but it is still bad.

Cartoon characters should have cartoon movies.

I give it a B-. Not an outstanding grade, but considering the last one was a solid F it does show a large amount of growth.

Granted I'm still not watching the movie because everything about it looks like it was designed for pre-teens in terms of humor levels and it feels like I was never the target audience.

Saelune:
Still looks bad, but now everyone is tricked into thinking it is not so bad because it is not as bad as it was, but it is still bad.

Cartoon characters should have cartoon movies.

I raise you "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and "Mary Poppins".

... Actually, I might fold on Mary Poppins. I remember being bored as a kid.

I raise you "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".

God, that was a good movie.

ObsidianJones:

Saelune:
Still looks bad, but now everyone is tricked into thinking it is not so bad because it is not as bad as it was, but it is still bad.

Cartoon characters should have cartoon movies.

I raise you "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and "Mary Poppins".

... Actually, I might fold on Mary Poppins. I remember being bored as a kid.

I raise you "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".

God, that was a good movie.

I call. "Dragonheart." Absolutely beautiful movie, amazing CGI for its day, still holds up now.

The Rogue Wolf:

ObsidianJones:

Saelune:
Still looks bad, but now everyone is tricked into thinking it is not so bad because it is not as bad as it was, but it is still bad.

Cartoon characters should have cartoon movies.

I raise you "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and "Mary Poppins".

... Actually, I might fold on Mary Poppins. I remember being bored as a kid.

I raise you "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".

God, that was a good movie.

I call. "Dragonheart." Absolutely beautiful movie, amazing CGI for its day, still holds up now.

We're going to need a ruling from Saelune. 'Cartoon characters' were specified here. Dragonheart be a bad ass dragon. Sans cartoonism.

So, on one hand, Sonic looks much better, and I think the trailer is better overall.

On the other, I have to admit, if you asked me whether I'd be interested in the film if not for Sonic, the answer would almost certainly be no.

CoCage:

I think the movie will be just okay, but it should have been animated. I'd prefer 2D, but we all know that is not going to happen, so 3D would have been fine.

2D or 3D, I think it would be better animated. Plus, why is this set on Earth? Clearly Green Hill exists in the movie's universe, so why not have a movie there?

ObsidianJones:

Saelune:
Still looks bad, but now everyone is tricked into thinking it is not so bad because it is not as bad as it was, but it is still bad.

Cartoon characters should have cartoon movies.

I raise you "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and "Mary Poppins".

... Actually, I might fold on Mary Poppins. I remember being bored as a kid.

I raise you "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".

God, that was a good movie.

Would've been far more interesting had this movie choosen for an actual (traditional) cartoon/live-action hydrid style. Instead were left with this Smurfs looking shit. Speaking of, this movie still looks awful.

ObsidianJones:

Saelune:
Still looks bad, but now everyone is tricked into thinking it is not so bad because it is not as bad as it was, but it is still bad.

Cartoon characters should have cartoon movies.

I raise you "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and "Mary Poppins".

... Actually, I might fold on Mary Poppins. I remember being bored as a kid.

I raise you "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".

God, that was a good movie.

Mary Poppins was dumb, and the cartoons were ancillary. And Who Framed Roger Rabbit was still a cartoon movie.

Neither tried to make the cartoons not be cartoons. Really they only support my point. Hell, the singular 'cartoon character' turned 'live action' in Roger Rabbit was the insane, disturbing villain who horrified many a child.

Hawki:
So, on one hand, Sonic looks much better, and I think the trailer is better overall.

On the other, I have to admit, if you asked me whether I'd be interested in the film if not for Sonic, the answer would almost certainly be no.

CoCage:

I think the movie will be just okay, but it should have been animated. I'd prefer 2D, but we all know that is not going to happen, so 3D would have been fine.

2D or 3D, I think it would be better animated. Plus, why is this set on Earth? Clearly Green Hill exists in the movie's universe, so why not have a movie there?

Because it's made by a mostly creatively bankrupt industry. Do you know how many animated cartoons went live action and have them mainly in the "real world", modern times, or focuses more the human characters? Sonic X is actually guilty of this too, which is why a lot of people don't like it. Well that, the 4kids dub/censorship, and Chris Thonrdyke. Oh, you have people that enjoy it now, back then, there was a divide. And me, I don't even bother trying to look at the series again. There are times where I almost prefer watching Underground over X. Almost.

According to Word of God from Sega, Sonic and friends do hop dimension in the games. Sometimes it's obvious, other times it's all there in the manual. Also, Sonic hopped plenty of dimensions in the Archie brand comics. But I agree with you, another human focused adaption is pointless.

The original design was bad, the movie is still 99% likely to end up bad, but Paramount caving to internet outrage is a worrying sign. Internet discourse on movies has been terrible since it started and only gotten worse over time. I've seen a fair share of online comments already talking about Paramount 'listening to the fans' as justification for why every other studio should cave into every other idiotic fan demand. Focus testing has already ruined enough movies without the internet becoming a single live focus test for the studios to caper to in the vein hope that they can stave off being bought up by Disney for a few more years

ObsidianJones:
We're going to need a ruling from Saelune. 'Cartoon characters' were specified here. Dragonheart be a bad ass dragon. Sans cartoonism.

Ehh, fair enough. I was just thinking "blended mediums".

CoCage:

Because it's made by a mostly creatively bankrupt industry. Do you know how many animated cartoons went live action and have them mainly in the "real world", modern times, or focuses more the human characters? Sonic X is actually guilty of this too, which is why a lot of people don't like it. Well that, the 4kids dub/censorship, and Chris Thonrdyke. Oh, you have people that enjoy it now, back then, there was a divide. And me, I don't even bother trying to look at the series again. There are times where I almost prefer watching Underground over X. Almost.

It's hard to get consensus from Sonic fandom, but my understanding was that people dislike Sonic X now, but it was popular when it came out, at least initially. I don't recall the censorship issue ever really being a thing until season 3 where the dub literally edited Molly's death out from ever happening.

That said, I like Sonic X overall. Which may seem odd since I've just complained about Sonic being on Earth, but among other things, Sonic X actually did the legwork of how the world would react to anthropomorphic animals and a doctor turning up with said doctor having superior technology to anything on Earth. Even Chris I didn't mind, because I can understand why he was there as an audience surrogate, and he does provide a 'window' into the world for the main characters. On the other hand, stating that the reason the movie is set on Earth because of budget or lack of creativity is a plausible one.

But we agree that Sonic Underground lurks at/near the bottom of Sonic cartoons, so there's that I guess.

According to Word of God from Sega, Sonic and friends do hop dimension in the games. Sometimes it's obvious, other times it's all there in the manual. Also, Sonic hopped plenty of dimensions in the Archie brand comics. But I agree with you, another human focused adaption is pointless.

Oh yeah. That. There's actually contradictory information there, but the idea of different dimensions in the game doesn't hold water because as early as SA1, Mystic Ruins is located along the train line from Station Square. The best explanation I can go with is the notion is that on Earth, there's a "human world" and "animal world" that are largely separate from each other, each doing their own thing. Which actually got me wondering what GUN was doing during Sonic Forces. Looking to their own borders maybe?

As for Archie, yeah, Sonic did dimension hopping, but humans were part of the setting before SA1, so it's kind of a non-issue. STC actually brought humans in like that when the (UK?) Army invaded Mobius because their commander was evil or something. Heck, it's been awhile.

Hawki:

CoCage:

Because it's made by a mostly creatively bankrupt industry. Do you know how many animated cartoons went live action and have them mainly in the "real world", modern times, or focuses more the human characters? Sonic X is actually guilty of this too, which is why a lot of people don't like it. Well that, the 4kids dub/censorship, and Chris Thonrdyke. Oh, you have people that enjoy it now, back then, there was a divide. And me, I don't even bother trying to look at the series again. There are times where I almost prefer watching Underground over X. Almost.

It's hard to get consensus from Sonic fandom, but my understanding was that people dislike Sonic X now, but it was popular when it came out, at least initially. I don't recall the censorship issue ever really being a thing until season 3 where the dub literally edited Molly's death out from ever happening.

That said, I like Sonic X overall. Which may seem odd since I've just complained about Sonic being on Earth, but among other things, Sonic X actually did the legwork of how the world would react to anthropomorphic animals and a doctor turning up with said doctor having superior technology to anything on Earth. Even Chris I didn't mind, because I can understand why he was there as an audience surrogate, and he does provide a 'window' into the world for the main characters. On the other hand, stating that the reason the movie is set on Earth because of budget or lack of creativity is a plausible one.

But we agree that Sonic Underground lurks at/near the bottom of Sonic cartoons, so there's that I guess.

According to Word of God from Sega, Sonic and friends do hop dimension in the games. Sometimes it's obvious, other times it's all there in the manual. Also, Sonic hopped plenty of dimensions in the Archie brand comics. But I agree with you, another human focused adaption is pointless.

Oh yeah. That. There's actually contradictory information there, but the idea of different dimensions in the game doesn't hold water because as early as SA1, Mystic Ruins is located along the train line from Station Square. The best explanation I can go with is the notion is that on Earth, there's a "human world" and "animal world" that are largely separate from each other, each doing their own thing. Which actually got me wondering what GUN was doing during Sonic Forces. Looking to their own borders maybe?

As for Archie, yeah, Sonic did dimension hopping, but humans were part of the setting before SA1, so it's kind of a non-issue. STC actually brought humans in like that when the (UK?) Army invaded Mobius because their commander was evil or something. Heck, it's been awhile.

I can't speak for the UK comics as I never read them. Archie comics had Overlanders (humans with distinctly 4 fingers) with most of them wiped out. I just remember the retcon they did to bring regular humans in to Sonic's world to tie in with the Sonic Adventure games. I found it hilarious, as the story was "oh, (five-fingered) humans were always in Sonic's world. They were just hiding in cloaked civilizations. One that looks like San Francisco for some reason." It was one of the times kid me saw the writer pulling things out of their asses.

immortalfrieza:
Why they don't just make these things animated when it would be 100 times better received and just as much cheaper to do in the bargain I have no idea.

Simply put. Marketing.

Marketing a Hollywood film can cost as much as the film itself, so the cost of the film doesn't really matter. The entire reason this film exists is to cash in the recognisable IP of Sonic the Hedgehog. It doesn't matter if the film is good, you just need to market it heavily and people will see it just because they know the IP.

Having recognizable actors in a film who you can put in trailers or or posters is better for marketing than having CGI characters.

Again, the point isn't for the film to be good or even to make it look good, the point is to activate that little part of the brain that thinks "wow, I recognize that" so that when parents are choosing which film to take their insufferable child to they choose this one.

It's the same cynical process that gave us the Smurfs movies or the Garfield movies, because literally any old IP can be marketed this way to children and make some money.

CyanCat47:
The original design was bad, the movie is still 99% likely to end up bad, but Paramount caving to internet outrage is a worrying sign. Internet discourse on movies has been terrible since it started and only gotten worse over time. I've seen a fair share of online comments already talking about Paramount 'listening to the fans' as justification for why every other studio should cave into every other idiotic fan demand. Focus testing has already ruined enough movies without the internet becoming a single live focus test for the studios to caper to in the vein hope that they can stave off being bought up by Disney for a few more years

Focus Testing and Internet Fan Demands is the reason why we went from Batman v Superman to Shazam.

I kinda think that this movie would make a lot more money if they casted Chris alongside Sonic to defeat Jim Carrey. It would make a lot of ironic money.

Are they going to remake the gangsters paradise trailer with the new model?

Is it weird I'm actually excited for this? The redesign looks a LOT better and the new trailer has a fun road trip vibe.

If course, I'm someone who didn't mind Sonic X, so I don't have what you would call "good taste"...

ObsidianJones:

I raise you "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" and "Mary Poppins".

... Actually, I might fold on Mary Poppins. I remember being bored as a kid.

I raise you "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".

God, that was a good movie.

The bad guy from Roger Rabbit scared the shit out of me as a kid. It's like Hitler, if Hitler was a Nazi.

CoCage:

I can't speak for the UK comics as I never read them. Archie comics had Overlanders (humans with distinctly 4 fingers) with most of them wiped out. I just remember the retcon they did to bring regular humans in to Sonic's world to tie in with the Sonic Adventure games. I found it hilarious, as the story was "oh, (five-fingered) humans were always in Sonic's world. They were just hiding in cloaked civilizations. One that looks like San Francisco for some reason." It was one of the times kid me saw the writer pulling things out of their asses.

I don't see that as a retcon - not unless you go by the literal definition of a retcon (i.e. "retroactive continuity"). That said, what struck me as odd wasn't that the city was hidden, but that four fingers were a thing. Like, I'd never even noticed it before with any of the characters, and it struck me as such a bizzare distinction. What's more, given how Overlanders were portrayed up to that point, with their multi-coloured hair, I figured that you'd already have some distinction between Overlanders and regular humans through the aesthetic differences.

Samtemdo8:

Focus Testing and Internet Fan Demands is the reason why we went from Batman v Superman to Shazam.

...and? One of those films is much, MUCH better than the other.

Marik2:
I kinda think that this movie would make a lot more money if they casted Chris alongside Sonic to defeat Jim Carrey.

https://www.fanfiction.net/s/12993587/1/

Beat you to it.

CrazyGirl17:
Is it weird I'm actually excited for this? The redesign looks a LOT better and the new trailer has a fun road trip vibe.

No...but why is Sonic going on a road trip anyway? He certainly doesn't need help moving around in the film.

If course, I'm someone who didn't mind Sonic X, so I don't have what you would call "good taste"...

Well, as someone who likes Sonic X and regards it as the #2 Sonic animated media, you're not alone.

Baffle2:
It's like Hitler, if Hitler was a Nazi.

Huh?

Hawki:
So, on one hand, Sonic looks much better, and I think the trailer is better overall.

On the other, I have to admit, if you asked me whether I'd be interested in the film if not for Sonic, the answer would almost certainly be no.

CoCage:

I think the movie will be just okay, but it should have been animated. I'd prefer 2D, but we all know that is not going to happen, so 3D would have been fine.

2D or 3D, I think it would be better animated. Plus, why is this set on Earth? Clearly Green Hill exists in the movie's universe, so why not have a movie there?

If it's anything like the Monster Hunter movies reasoning it's because the directors want an "every-man" character that outsiders of the franchise will be able to "relate" to because actual fans apparently aren't enough to rely on.

Semi-DemiFiend:
If it's anything like the Monster Hunter movies reasoning it's because the directors want an "every-man" character that outsiders of the franchise will be able to "relate" to because actual fans apparently aren't enough to rely on.

I'd maintain that:

-Sonic is far more well known in the general populace than Monster Hunter - a lot of people will have at least heard of him.

-Having Sonic interact with a human makes sense if he's brought to Earth (see Sonic X), but again, why rely on that plot point in the first place?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here