It looks bad, really, really bad. It would have been better to make the whole film CGI ala 'Jungle Book' and leave only Jim Carrey's Dr. Robotnik the sole human character that sends his minions to destroy Sonic in a fantastical island with all sort of obstacles and reward rings like in the game. This version was the lazy version we have seen a thousand times of bringing a cartoon to the real world. It just doesn't work and doesn't meets expectations.
Critics are trashing the film for all the wrong reasons (smells like an agenda), but audiences are loving this film. Critics RT score is seating at a so-so 64%, but audience scores is at 90%. IMO this film is catering to Sonic fans and they are pleased with what they got. While the studio original opening projections was $35 million it now looks like it might very well open with around $65 million, not only besting 'Birds of Prey' opening, but making it one of the best openings for a video game based film.
Apparently Jim Carrey will get the well known Dr. Robotnik look near the end of the film. I think this should have been a better selling point in the poster than the Victorian look he has through out the film.
The majority of the Sonic fans are around your age. More adults than children have watched that film this weekend. I am not much interested in this film, but if it comes out on Netflix I'll watch it.
Yeah, millions of 40+ people were dying to watch a movie about a shit computer-game they played 25 years ago. Idiot.
SONIC BOOM! The film did better than expected and grabbed over $70 million during the Presidents Day weekend. And, yes motherfucker, there are 40+ people that are fans of the video game and did watched the film. Just do a little search on youtube and you will find a lot of older guys raving about this movie about the character they loved so much playing in the 90s.
Nonsense. Agreed that Nintendo had the better range of games overall (and that Super Mario Bros 3 is the best game of all time), but the first three Sonic games (especially Sonic 2 imo) were brilliant and up there alongside the Nintendo stuff.
Wrong. Sega developed Sonic The Hedgehog purely for its graphics & speed...but it had very short playability: took me 2-3 days to finish it (what was it - 6 levels)? Super MarioWorld took me 6 months. Average graphics but insanely deep game. Street Fighter II - best game ever....on the SNES. (shit on the Megadrive)
Sonic 1 was fairly easy, but so was the original Super Mario Bros. (although admittedly SMB1 was made at a much earlier time). Super Mario World was great but Sonic 3 would have had just as much depth, if not more, if it had been released as originally intended instead of Sonic 3 and Sonic & Knuckles being split into two different games. It was basically the Sonic games that enabled Sega to be competitors in the market with Nintendo and take such a large market share. Agreed that the SNES was the better system, I don't think I had any other Sega games apart from FIFA '95.
EA NHL '94 - played that to death. Just awesome. FIFA never really did it for me until the FIFA Soccer 09 version. Played Pro Evolution more than FIFA
Genesis is and was better than Super Nintendo. Dreamcast was better than PS1. Fucked up management lead to SEGA's diminished market share. The XBox was supposed to be a SEGA console.
Sega Genesis wasn't better in any aspect: hardware, sound, games. Super Nintendo had superior hardware - huge advantage in colors/sprites, as well as more flexibility. Sound-wise, SNES took a bigger jump from the 8-bit era, was much more versatile as it could reproduce samples. Games: SNES was the clear winner too. Some of the all-time greatest RPGs and dozens of classic games that still hold up today. Sega had a bigger collection of shit games that dropped off real quick. It was better marketed. And it looked cooler. Otherwise, hope that clears things up for you.