Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Classic Games (Games) Movies

'Sonic the Hedgehog' Has Biggest-Ever Opening For a Video Game Adaptation (thewrap.com) 108

Posted by EditorDavid from the out-performing-Pikachu dept.
An anonymous reader quotes The Wrap: "Sonic the Hedgehog" is giving Paramount its best box office news in over a year, with a currently 3-day opening weekend of $55 million to become the best opening weekend ever for a video game adaptation... The delayed release of this film prompted by an intense rejection of Sonic's initial design is turning out to be a bit of a blessing in disguise. Moved from last November to this extended Presidents' Day weekend, "Sonic" is standing out in the movie marketplace as a popular family offering with no major competition currently in theaters and none coming until Pixar's "Onward" arrives in three weeks.

Audience reception, driven by both families and hardcore Sonic fans, has been very strong with an A on CinemaScore, 4/5 on Postrak, and 95% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. Even critics have been fairly positive with a 65% Rotten Tomatoes score... If this weekend's estimates hold, "Sonic" will have an opening weekend that's more than double any of Paramount's 2019 films, including the $29 million opening of "Terminator: Dark Fate." In fact, it has the highest opening weekend for the studio since "Mission: Impossible — Fallout," which opened to $61.2 million in July 2018.
The Wrap's article also includes a list ranking "all 46 videogame movies" from best to worst. They rank 2001's "Tomb Raider" just ahead of 2018's "Tomb Raider" (at #14 and #15, respectively), and also remember several forgotten early-1990s films based on videogames (including "Street Fighter," "Mortal Kombat" and "Super Mario Bros.")
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Sonic the Hedgehog' Has Biggest-Ever Opening For a Video Game Adaptation More

'Sonic the Hedgehog' Has Biggest-Ever Opening For a Video Game Adaptation

Comments Filter:

  • Slow movie week, combined (Score:3)

    by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Saturday February 15, 2020 @08:02PM (#59732054)

    with a video game movie not directed by Uwe Boll, makes a perfect place to jam your kids for a couple hours to keep them quiet.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Slow movie week, combined (Score:4, Interesting)

      by lgw ( 121541 ) on Sunday February 16, 2020 @12:00AM (#59732330) Journal

      More than that, I think. In a stunning turnabout of consumer relations, the producers actually listened to the target audience, and re-animated the whole damn film because people weren't happy with it.

      Imagine if they had done that with Cats. Well, maybe Cats got a boost because it was so bad that it was an instant audience participation movie (only movie I know of with midnight screenings with the audience yelling at the screen and throwing things in its initial run.)

      When the fans said "this sucks", they didn't insult the fanbase and tell them not to see the movie, they said "sorry about that". And then they fixed it. It's almost like a business with good customer service makes more money or something.

      • Wow. Sounds like you missed some live productions of Rocky Horror Picture Show. Throwing things at the screen and audience participation was par for the course back then.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward
          He went out of his way to put in its initial run in italics.

        • Yeah, but the intention behind it is quite different. Or, in another way, while both grow in your garden, it's a very different statement whether you throw a rose or a tomato.

    • How old are your children that they have any idea who Sonic the Hedgehog is?

      • If they're young enough, they'll probably say "Well, he can't be worse in the movie than in the games about him..."

  • Is the Mortal Kombat movie really thought of as that obscure now? It's not much more than a dressed-up Enter the Dragon remake but I wouldn't call Mortal Kombat or Super Mario Bros "forgotten". Street Fighter was kind of narmy but still charming in its own way.

    • Re:"Forgotten early-1990s films" (Score:4, Interesting)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Saturday February 15, 2020 @09:47PM (#59732156)
      Street Fighter is one of those so bad it's good type of movies. Raul Julis is great as Bison and some of his lines are just great:

      For you, the day Bison graced your village was the most important day of your life. But for me, it was Tuesday.

      I don't think anyone on that set took the film too seriously, but at the same time they still put in some actual effort and had fun with it so that the end result is still enjoyable.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lgw ( 121541 )

      I heard the Mortal Kombat themesong on the radio just a couple of years ago. It's been remixed and dubstepped and whatevered. Goofey as that movie was, it stuck with people in a way few action movies do. Wish I knew why, it was total schlock.

    • The article is trolling in every way possible. It calls Final Fantasy the game "an awful series," says "I can never remember which Pokemon is which", and says that "The Wizard" is about the Powerglove. Basically every comment replying to TFA is a flame that took the bait.

      • Final Fantasy is a series where the spinoffs like Tactics and Bravely Default are often better than the mainlines.

    • Hardly, I only saw it once but it was a pretty big deal when it came out, and nobody forgot the Super Mario Bros movie without extensive therapy.

  • I think Tomb Raider is about the only really good video game adaptation. It has stuff for the video game fanatic, while being very entertaining to the newbie. It has a tired and predictable script full of lazy tropes, but it is a video game after all.
    • I thought that the Silent Hill movie did a decent job of being somewhat faithful to the series while managing to be a half-decent movie at the same time. What works in or makes for a good video game doesn't always translate well to a feature length film. However, there really aren't many video game adaptations that are even decent [wikipedia.org], so it's not as though there's a lot of competition.

      However, I don't think that the movie industry adjusts for inflation which allows them to keep having "biggest ever" movies

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by lgw ( 121541 )

      I liked the Tomb Raider movies. Sure, they were schlock, but they were well done. The effects were fine, and the acting wasn't cringeworthy. Heck, it actually had some action that was neither explosions nor punching, so it wasn't as tired a script as most action movies these days.

      However, Detective Pikachu was better. Both Lego Batman movies were OK, too, and technically video game movies.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • I did really enjoy the FPS portion of the DOOM movie. That's pretty much the only reason to watch it.

          While not based off a game, Hardcore Henry was in FPS mode the whole movie (even had the whole "silent protagonist" thing which they kind of riff on at the beginning) and definitely had a video game feel.

          Also, Halo: Forwaed Unto Daen was pretty good with good production value. Halo is one of those IPs that should easily lend itself to film

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ChoGGi ( 522069 )

            Turbo Kid is (relatively) decent, more of an 80's/comic book hero feel then video game though.

        • Yeah, I feel the same way about the Punisher. Easiest goddamn costumed adventurer ever: he just shoots and stabs and explodes people with grenades. What's the problem?!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by lgw ( 121541 )

          Doom the video game doesn't have a plot, though, not in the sense a screenwriter can easily rip off. That's the curse of video game movies in general: the good part of any video game story is what you do, and that translates poorly to other media. Any story that's explained through cut-scenes or quest text tends to be pretty badly written, even by Hollywood standards, but that's not what makes a videogame story work,

          What would make a good Doom movie, they way you describe, is really an original story set

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Calydor ( 739835 )

      I think the thing about the Tomb Raider movies is that they went for making an action movie FIRST, and then just used characterization from a computer game to accomplish that goal, instead of trying to turn a computer game into a movie.

  • Despite (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Saturday February 15, 2020 @08:29PM (#59732082)
    A lot of the Twitter crowd for some reason, was trying to get people to avoid Sonic, and go to Birds of Prey instead.

    Not that I'd go to either, but it's a little weird that some folks are trying to get people to go to a flop.

    • Re:Despite (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sumguy2436 ( 6186944 ) on Saturday February 15, 2020 @08:45PM (#59732104)

      A lot of the Twitter crowd for some reason, was trying to get people to avoid Sonic, and go to Birds of Prey instead.

      That reason is woke politics.

      The usual journo critics have been fawning over Birds of Prey because something something strong women and you filthy boys hate women if you're not going to see it. They resent Sonic because it's more popular than Ghostbusters (2016) 2.0.

      • Re:Despite (Score:5, Interesting)

        by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Saturday February 15, 2020 @09:08PM (#59732118)

        They resent Sonic because it's more popular than Ghostbusters (2016) 2.0.

        I personally thought ghostbusters (2016) was demeaning to women and didn’t like the film much. Mostly this is because I really liked the original film, and the remake was almost identical with nothing substantial that was new besides women as the lead roles. Rather than see this as empowering, I felt it the base framing was that women can never hope to be more than just a cheap and unoriginal remake of what men made great. It’s as if the message is that the best women can do is follow in men’s footsteps. There was so much you could have done in that universe, there is no reason at all women can’t be an original and or unique inspiring force for a film or cinematic universe, who are fully capable of forging their own path, and to show this would send a far more inspiring message.

        • Ghostbusters was bad because (Score:5, Interesting)

          by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday February 15, 2020 @09:32PM (#59732132)
          they tried to re-create the original movie, literally. A lot of what was in the first movie was ad libed by Akroid, Ramis & Murray. They tried to do the same with the new cast, but they weren't those kind of actors. So none of the comedy worked.

          What they needed was a proper script, but by the time they realized they needed one they were too far along to reshoot the whole thing. Then China banned the movie and that sunk the whole thing.
          • If they had a novel script, even with a substantially similar story, it would have been much better. But I’m of the opinion it was less that the actors weren’t capable of doing similar roles to the original film, and more that the original film cheapened the whole remake. Following the original script too closely in a remake can ruin the film because a copy is seldom better than the original and anyone that watches the original first will likely see the original as better. It can be done, but

            • If they had a novel script, even with a substantially similar story, it would have been much better. But I’m of the opinion it was less that the actors weren’t capable of doing similar roles to the original film, and more that the original film cheapened the whole remake. Following the original script too closely in a remake can ruin the film because a copy is seldom better than the original and anyone that watches the original first will likely see the original as better. It can be done, but it’s hard to pull off. That’s why it’s more common to make a substantial amount of changes go give it a unique take.

              Soft reboots are seldom very good.

              I understand that the New Ghostbusters Afterlife film pointedly ignores the 2016 version with one quote: "There hasn’t been a ghost sighting in thirty years."

              • it's a teen horror movie, like The Gate & The Monster Squad. That's not a reboot as a new movie in the same universe. Ghostbusters is more of a backdrop to the rest of the movie than a central part.

                • it's a teen horror movie, like The Gate & The Monster Squad. That's not a reboot as a new movie in the same universe. Ghostbusters is more of a backdrop to the rest of the movie than a central part.

                  I didn't mean that Afterlife was a soft reboot - GB16 was.

            • it's that they were being asked to do a kind of acting they never do and that barely exists these days. There's Curb Your Enthusiasm but that's about it, and you'll note the actors who carry the show are all older.

              The trouble is we lost Vaudeville and the stand up circuit. Vaudeville died a natural death but stand up was killed by Smartphones with video cameras. I forget who but a comedian made the point that he couldn't try new material because if he bombed it was all over YouTube & Facebook the ne

            • and more that the original film cheapened the whole remake. Following the original script too closely in a remake can ruin the film because a copy is seldom better than the original and anyone that watches the original first will likely see the original as better.

              See "Wrath of Khan" versus "Into Darkness."

          • they tried to re-create the original movie, literally. A lot of what was in the first movie was ad libed by Akroid, Ramis & Murray. They tried to do the same with the new cast, but they weren't those kind of actors. So none of the comedy worked. What they needed was a proper script,

            Would not have helped. The original ghostbusters was very good, with a competent and talented team (directors, actors, writers), all with the same intention and motivation (entertain the audience) behind it. The result was that even with the same team and the same motivation and intentionthey were unable to replicate the success in the sequel.

            It is doubtful that a different team, with a different intention, was going to get anywhere when the same team and same intention failed.

            Then China banned the movie and that sunk the whole thing.

            No. The movie's takings were c

            • the original Ghostbusters has repeatedly been called Lightning in a Bottle. The sequel was poorly generally poorly received by comparison (and you'll note it took decades to get a full on new movie).

              It wouldn't have made the new movie as good as the first, but again, the first was lightning in bottle, something damn near impossible to catch. They were never going to replicate the original or even match it in quality. But they could have made a much better movie.

              And with China the movie would have s

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Misagon ( 1135 )

            The movie's failure was not just because the movie itself was bad. The marketing for it struck a bad note. Some very stupid moves by marketing, the director, actors and even just friends of the director stirred up some very unnecessary controversies that in the end just hurt the reputation of the movie and of those involved.
            If you want to sell a movie on nostalgia, you don't insult the core fanbase!

        • They resent Sonic because it's more popular than Ghostbusters (2016) 2.0.

          I personally thought ghostbusters (2016) was demeaning to women and didn’t like the film much. Mostly this is because I really liked the original film, and the remake was almost identical with nothing substantial that was new besides women as the lead roles. Rather than see this as empowering, I felt it the base framing was that women can never hope to be more than just a cheap and unoriginal remake of what men made great.

          The altering of good movies is a terrible trend that ignores canon (yes that is important) and destroys the mythology. I'm inclined to agree that it demeans women while pretending to be uplifting. As a counterpoint, look at the Alien trilogy. Sigourney Weaver is a beloved female character that exemplifies a person overcoming some serious adversity. Good story line, a strong female lead (note that you know she's a strong female by her actions, not some Hollywood wonk telling us how strong she is.

          2016 Ghostbusters was just weird and bad, going for a strange failed combination of talky talky with failed slapstick.

        • There's a new ghostbusters movie that promises to be better than the girl power one - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4513678/>Ghostbusters: Afterlife.

          Can't wait to see the vocal minority go insane if the new one (without any woke-ness) does better than the woke one.

      • A lot of the Twitter crowd for some reason, was trying to get people to avoid Sonic, and go to Birds of Prey instead.

        That reason is woke politics.

        I just saw some of the statistics, and they are interesting. Some 65 percent of BOP viewers were males. So we really can't blame the movies failure on men.

        But 65 percent of a poor turnout shows more that it is basically a bad movie, made bad because more to your point, it is a long lecture, which has little entertainment value. Men don't want to be nagged and lectured, and that really has to make women pretty uncomfortable as well. I know my wife doesn't go to that sort of movie, as she says it is obviou

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I wonder if some viewers were expecting some soft-porn style titillation from Birds of Prey, like the Charlie's Angels movies or something, and were subsequently disappointed.

          Harley Quinn is alternatively over-sexualized with a skin-right catsuit or Daisy Dukes cut-offs and portrayed as a grungy Joker knock-off. Combined with it being an R18 movie and getting very little promotion they kind of set it up to fail.

          • No one was expecting soft porn. BOP is a classic case of go-woke-go-broke. It did poorly because it was preachy SJW bullshit no one wanted to see. What preachy man hating SJW bullshit movie has ever done well? The fact audiences punished BOP by simply not showing up and then crushing it on the movie rating sites sends the clear message that this is not an SJW world and those people are just a very loud tiny minority on Twitter and no where else. It is good that BOP died. Maybe, just maybe, they'll thi

            • Maybe, just maybe, they'll think twice before making yet another man-hating movie. Hint: you don't have to hate men to love and promote women. Example: Xena.

              Or Wonder Woman - which you would think would be a feminist icon. But the feminists were angry that Gal Gadot had shaved armpits - https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/... [huffingtonpost.ca]

              Here is a comparison between Gadot and Brie Larson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

              Gadot, smiling open, telling the reporter that her movie is not just for women, but for boys and girls.

              Contrast with Larson, the frown, the stink-eye balefl stare telling the audience that 40 year old white dudes shouldn't comment on movies that were not ma

          • I wonder if some viewers were expecting some soft-porn style titillation from Birds of Prey, like the Charlie's Angels movies or something, and were subsequently disappointed.

            Harley Quinn is alternatively over-sexualized with a skin-right catsuit or Daisy Dukes cut-offs and portrayed as a grungy Joker knock-off. Combined with it being an R18 movie and getting very little promotion they kind of set it up to fail.

            Well, the Charlies Angels 2019 wasn't terribly "hot" - with apologies to Ella Balinska, who is gorgeous. But Kristen Stewart - no. She simply isn't a very good actress, and looks like a pre-pubescent boy, if I might be so blunt. The earlier CA's did use the inherent attractiveness of women as part of the franchise.

            And here is the big problem. Men like seeing attractive women in movies. Women like seeing attractive men in movies. And the big secret is that women also like seeing attractive women in movies

      • To be fair, much of the "wokeness" has been coming from either side to where each has a narrative to propagandize, much like GamerGate of yore.

        It's no longer about enjoying something because it is good or maybe even thought provoking, but to support some ideology by giving billion dollar corps your money. Yeah.

        Bullies. All of them.

        I really wish this whole age would DIAF and take their Boomer, Karen, and SCP Ze51 with them.

      • Or it could be just, you know, a better movie.

        The OP's probably making shit up or at best extrapolating from one or two tweets to make it sound like some kind of massive conspiracy against fucking Sonic the Hedgehog.

    • the only thing I could find on the subject was a thread saying the opposite [twitter.com]. Are you sure what you're seeing isn't just shit stirers trying to rile folk up?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by aevan ( 903814 )
        You aren't looking at the right trash piles, er... websites. Like Paj ba [archive.is]

        Figure it for clickbait or virtue signal or shit stirrer...but there are proponents of that narrative. Also those that hate that they remade Sonic back into looking like Game Sonic, as opposed to some emaciated drowned rat thing.

        • You aren't looking at the right trash piles, er... websites. Like Paj ba [archive.is] Figure it for clickbait or virtue signal or shit stirrer...but there are proponents of that narrative. Also those that hate that they remade Sonic back into looking like Game Sonic, as opposed to some emaciated drowned rat thing.

          I have great respect for the producers respecting the fan's early criticism of Sonic. That hasn't been the case lately, as some movie producers/writers have attacked fans that offer criticism.

          There is a strange thing happening in movie criticism. Sites like Rotten Tomatoes are looking quite out of touch, and sometimes resorting to resetting the fan scores. While the Youtube movie critics are being largely proven correct given their correlation with the public's tracking with their criticism.

          If it is sh

          • Sites like Rotten Tomatoes are looking quite out of touch, and sometimes resorting to resetting the fan scores.

            They do that when it becomes clear that there's a campaign to "review bomb" a movie -- a small group of people giving 1-star reviews, usually for something they've not seen, in an attempt to change the fan score to something that doesn't reflect overall fan feeling about the movie (doing the same with 10/10 grade can also happen, but seems to be much rarer).

            Then again, random "fan scores" are a stupid idea anyway -- did it never occur to them that that would happen? Did they not realize that the people taki

            • Sites like Rotten Tomatoes are looking quite out of touch, and sometimes resorting to resetting the fan scores.

              They do that when it becomes clear that there's a campaign to "review bomb" a movie -- a small group of people giving 1-star reviews, usually for something they've not seen, in an attempt to change the fan score to something that doesn't reflect overall fan feeling about the movie (doing the same with 10/10 grade can also happen, but seems to be much rarer).

              And yet, the fan scores have tracked the actual success or failure of the movies lately. Let us not forget that the twitter crowd is just as capable of praising movies like BOP.

              What is unfortunate is that for the recent crop of woke movies, they just don't attract men or most women. And the (mostly) women that might be attracted to them because of antipathy towards men don't go to movies - at least not those movies.

              In the end, reviewers, professional or amateur, don't matter all that much. movies win or

              • In the end, reviewers, professional or amateur, don't matter all that much. movies win or fail on their own merits. What the reviews are useful for is getting feedback when a movie does fail that you can analyze to gain insight into the flop.

                In the end, a review for me helps me answer "do I want to see this movie now, wait for it to come out on dvd/streaming, or just avoid altogether?" Trailers lie so often that they're not that much help (I've seen some amazing looking trailers for terrible movies, and vice versa). I've done this before by reading a reviewer's work and ask myself "does this reviewer's taste seem to match mine? Do I like his/her analysis?" It's never going to match up 100% of course. Unfortunately, I never found another really

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jonwil ( 467024 )

      Probably Warner Bros shills posting that stuff on Twitter.
      There is no way an R rated DC cinematic universe film centered around a lesser known DC character can beat a PG rated film based on one of the most famous video game mascots of all time.

      • Joker made a billion dollars and it was rated R. I think it had more to do with the people associated with POC literally saying "white males this isn't the film for you, don't watch it." And then they stayed away in droves.

    • Movies flip for many reason. Birds of Prey was a pretty run of the mill comic book movie. It was no where near as bad as some DC movies, but want great either. However it was solidly entertaining so not seeing it because it had been declared a flop is just silly. Some of the greatest flops have turned out to be critically acclaimed cult classics in the end.

      You're really limiting yourself if you determine if s movie is worth seeing based only on its commercial success.

      As for Twitter. That's just intelligence

      • Movies flip for many reason. Birds of Prey was a pretty run of the mill comic book movie. It was no where near as bad as some DC movies, but want great either. However it was solidly entertaining so not seeing it because it had been declared a flop is just silly.

        The reason a lot of people didn't go to see the movie is the Wokeness of it all. Ewan McGregor said in an interview:

        “What interested me with Birds of Prey is that it’s a feminist film. It is very finely written, there is in the script a real look on misogyny,” he said. “And I think we need that, we need to be more aware of how we behave with the opposite sex. We need to be taught to change.”

        and: “Misogynists in movies are often extreme: they rape, they beat women

      • Was Birds of Prey really supposed to be a hit? Early February is dead time. That's when you release your movies that you don't expect to do that well. That's where your mid-range movies go, not ones doing blockbuster numbers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      That was always doomed to failure because Sonic is a kids movie and Birds of Prey is R18. There is almost no overlap in demographics, anyone interested in Sonic is probably too young to legally see Birds of Prey.

      It's odd that they made BoP an R18 movie, as the main character is popular with younger audiences. In fact she originates from the 1990s Batman cartoon.

      • That was always doomed to failure because Sonic is a kids movie and Birds of Prey is R18. There is almost no overlap in demographics, anyone interested in Sonic is probably too young to legally see Birds of Prey.

        You are correct. That's part of the weirdness of the whole process of the Twitter attacks on Sonic.

        It's odd that they made BoP an R18 movie, as the main character is popular with younger audiences. In fact she originates from the 1990s Batman cartoon.

        Harley is very popular with tweens and early teens. This is a great way to get young ladies interested in comics. And she's a sympathetic character as well. But the movie pretty much removes any sympathy for her. The producers apparently wanted to remove any sex appeal as well. The cartoon Quinn is a fetching lass. The BOP version is definitely not.

        Making it PG, and removing the lecturing aspect from it wou

        • What has happened is that after the Star Wars debacle, with fans being unhappy about being called man babies and all by Disney, pretty much any actor/actress going on the offensive about how awful men are is going to get a bad response. Even so, as I noted, 65 percent of whatever audience saw BOP was male. Whic makes me think that the Woke issue is not popular with women either.

          I don't think women are interested because Harlie Quinn is a teenage-girl-comic-fantasy. Girls with maturity aren't going to find the character that compelling. It was something they might have enjoyed when they were kids in the 1990s, but most women need something more than just "revisiting my childhood, but darker and edgier!"

          • I don't think women are interested because Harlie Quinn is a teenage-girl-comic-fantasy. Girls with maturity aren't going to find the character that compelling. It was something they might have enjoyed when they were kids in the 1990s, but most women need something more than just "revisiting my childhood, but darker and edgier!"

            True, dat. What a lot of women like is the romantic comedy mode movie. Or the Hallmark channel movies, which are hardly anything special story-wise (but they do have decent production values.

            My better half watches a lot of Hallmark, and interestingly enough, a lot of forensic crime shows. Her favorite is "Snapped" on the Oxygen Channel. It's about women that kill their husbands, boyfriends and sometimes children. I tease her about getting protips from it for when she wants to get rid of me.

            Regardless, sh

            • Her favorite is "Snapped" on the Oxygen Channel. It's about women that kill their husbands, boyfriends and sometimes children.

              Is it hosted by Thanos? Because I'd totally watch that.

              • Her favorite is "Snapped" on the Oxygen Channel. It's about women that kill their husbands, boyfriends and sometimes children.

                Is it hosted by Thanos? Because I'd totally watch that.

                That would be awesome.

  • Forgotten??? (Score:3)

    by samwichse ( 1056268 ) on Saturday February 15, 2020 @09:07PM (#59732116)

    ...several forgotten early-1990s films based on videogames (including "Street Fighter," "Mortal Kombat" and "Super Mario Bros."

    What! They're terrible, but I don't know anyone who has forgotten them. Peak camp.

  • Because there are crap people that watch them.

    We ought to publicly shame such people.

    Point at them when they leave the cinema and laugh at them.
    Use "sonicwatcher" or "super hero movie watcher" as grave insults worse than "abortion of a festering asscunt", excuse my Internetish.

    I certainly will.
    Losers.

  • The very first tweet about the movie I saw, said it was terrible.

    But then most things I've seen after, make me think it's actually pretty good. The Angry Review on YouTube liked it quite a bit.

    I'm just a casual fan of Sonic and pretty much never go to movies anymore so I'm not going to see it in the theater, but I think I will at least rent it.

    • It's basically a superhero origin story. The superhero is Sonic. It has all the elements of a Marvel origin story. First they introduce the superhero and describe the events that made him realize he had some kind of power that makes him different. Then his arch-nemesis (Eggman) is introduced, and there's conflict followed by resolution as the hero finally realizes how to use his powers (and why he wants to use them). Naturally, people who have watched and loved superhero origin stories over the last de

    • The very first tweet about the movie I saw, said it was terrible.

      Depends on who is doing the tweeting - the tweets coming from those who are butthurt that woke movies, on average, do worse are tweeting "Sonic is terrible, go watch BoP". Rotten tomatoes, "professional" movie critics and readers of Salon will not admit that it is a good movie. The viewers (including youtube movie reviewers) tend to agree that it was good.

      But then most things I've seen after, make me think it's actually pretty good. The Angry Review on YouTube liked it quite a bit.

      There you go.

    • It's a cookie-cutter soulless made-by-committee focus-grouped movie. It's like a thousand other boring movies you've already seen, just remove the main character and insert Sonic. You could take any video game character and plug him in there and the plot would hardly change. Nothing more exciting or clever than that.

      It's not aggressively bad. It's not so bad that you're outraged, that it really draws attention to itself. Just a competently made and super-bland, full of jokes you probably could come up with

  • Mortal Combat was a great movie if you aren't a movie critic.
    The sequel on the other hand sucked hard.

    Double Dragon was pretty bad.
    Battleship didn't even try to follow any of the game mechanics, and the addition of aliens was a true WTF moment that never ended.
    I actually had fun watching Super Mario Brothers, but it failed to do the game any justice at all, though they did reference some things from the game.

    Street Fighter was also one I enjoyed, and it had plenty of character battles, so I can't say it did

    • Mortal Combat was a great movie if you aren't a movie critic.

      Mortal Combat was a great movie if you like trash. Mortal Combat: Annihilation was even better.

      (Disclaimer: I do enjoy myself trash movies that go for broke. I want to see "The Color out of Space" now. Peak crazy-ass-Nicolas Cage? Yes please).

  • This movie sells tickets based on its name, not on its own merit. Remember the Super Mario Bros movie? Think anyone would have paid to see that stinker if it wasn't for the name?

    Seriously, ticket sales for franchise movies say jack shit about the movie itself, they say more about how much the franchise itself is liked.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Misagon ( 1135 )

      Most reviews that I have seen have actually given the movie good scores.
      And professional film critics tend to judge movies by the movies' merits, according to cineastic criteria, not because of how the movies fit into their established franchises.

      This is a movie for kids, but it is mostly the kids' parents that remember playing Sonic the Hedgehog.

      • So we finally have a family movie that doesn't piss off the parents because it fucks with their memories of the franchise and doesn't bore the kids because they (as well as anyone else) can't understand what the hell is going on?

    • "This movie sells tickets based on its name, not on its own merit. Remember the Super Mario Bros movie? Think anyone would have paid to see that stinker if it wasn't for the name?"

        That is more like a cult classic, along the lines of the Garbage Pail Kids movie.

       

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Close