Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26373635-20150506020551/@comment-24714013-20150811002004

Smith B. wrote: Idk...I feel VERY mixed about the upcoming Sonic film as a whole

1. PG-13...idk, I doubt Sonic could pull off a PG-13 rated film without making it ridiculously dark (like 06 and Shadow) which would alienate some fans. Now, if the tone were in style to the Adventure games (which were darker than your average Sonic game but it was well balanced with some of the corny 1-liners). Personally...I'd say PG is better suited for the hedgehog since the franchise in general is targeted towards the whole family for the most part.

2. Live-Action/CGI...I'm 100% against this idea. The thing is, usually these type of adaptions focus more on a human character (eg. Smurfs, Transformers and Marmaduke). The reason this is usually done is because of how tricky and expensive it is to mix CGI with our world, so to save on expenses, they'd focus on a newly introduced human character (who can be viewed as an OC being inserted into a franchise). If you're gonna do a Sonic film, make it CGI and have Genndy Tartosky as the head of animation - the fast paced animation he used in Hotel Transylvania would perfectly compliment the Sonic world.

I'm open to possibilities, so here's hoping the movie is actually pretty good

Few things. Just because its PG-13 doesn't mean it's going to be Shadow level of dark. Take every Marvel superhero movie ever, with cheesy one-liners, fun moments and good action, (all except the crappy fantastic four), and literally all of them are rated PG-13 except the 2 punisher films and that other crappy fantastic four film. The hero movies are usually rated PG-13 for blood and language, the sonic movie could possibly have the same reasons, after all Shadow the hedgehog did have both. It doesn't have to be dark to have swears and blood though.

Also, about the whole CGI/live action thing. You said that those movies often focus more on the live-action characters more than the source material. 2 ways to avoid this: 1 e movie could have a high budget, giving it more time to show CGI figures, or 2 the human characters could be very interesting and as entertaining as the action scenes with the CGI characters. One could refute saying that most CGI/live action movies don't have interesting characters, but he movies you used as an example for CG-live action movies are seen as really crappy movies to most people because their human characters are uninteresting and the cgi isn't shown enough.