No their logic is the studio listened to fans for sonic and changed a bunch of shit to make them happy and the movie did well. For birds of prey the studio ignored the fans and tried to go super "woke" and the movie sucked.
They're right about those two points but they take it a bit farther then logic allows, to put it nicely. Honestly I didn't watch the whole thing.
Okay, haven't seen either of them. Thanks for clearing that up!
On a side note, kinda, wasn't the problem with Sonic about him looking too much like a human in that first trailer?
This might sound a bit conspiracy, but IMO the studio put out this trailer with Sonic looking completely ridiculous with the intent to generate drama and a lot of attention the movie otherwise would never have gotten to then change the look as a sign of good will. Next step, profit.
While I wouldn't put that kinda shady shit passed them they really did have to spend butt loads of money re-animating the movie. Although I think you're right the movie wouldn't have done nearly as well without all the controversy.
they really did have to spend butt loads of money re-animating the movie.
Why? I'm saying their shitty trailer was just a marketing gag, the real movie was always like what they changed it too. They wouldn't have to spend much more theoretically.
Although they could be that stupid to think that that first hedgehog was actually good, who knows? Maybe I'm expecting too much scheming of them.
You're right we have no way to know, and on top of the publicity they got it also would be a great way to fake a loss on the movie and get more tax brakes.
The more I think about it the more I think you're likely right.
I thought the Birds of Prey movie was alright. I can't imagine having much more fun in the weird ass Sonic movie than I did with BoP, which was still fairly low.
deleted by creator
So, do I get this right? Their logic goes: Movie about fast blue critter did better than movie about female anti-hero. boom, feminism destroyed.
That is their brilliant argument?
deleted by creator
No their logic is the studio listened to fans for sonic and changed a bunch of shit to make them happy and the movie did well. For birds of prey the studio ignored the fans and tried to go super "woke" and the movie sucked.
They're right about those two points but they take it a bit farther then logic allows, to put it nicely. Honestly I didn't watch the whole thing.
Okay, haven't seen either of them. Thanks for clearing that up!
On a side note, kinda, wasn't the problem with Sonic about him looking too much like a human in that first trailer?
This might sound a bit conspiracy, but IMO the studio put out this trailer with Sonic looking completely ridiculous with the intent to generate drama and a lot of attention the movie otherwise would never have gotten to then change the look as a sign of good will. Next step, profit.
While I wouldn't put that kinda shady shit passed them they really did have to spend butt loads of money re-animating the movie. Although I think you're right the movie wouldn't have done nearly as well without all the controversy.
Why? I'm saying their shitty trailer was just a marketing gag, the real movie was always like what they changed it too. They wouldn't have to spend much more theoretically.
Although they could be that stupid to think that that first hedgehog was actually good, who knows? Maybe I'm expecting too much scheming of them.
Because they said it cost a ton of money?
You're right we have no way to know, and on top of the publicity they got it also would be a great way to fake a loss on the movie and get more tax brakes. The more I think about it the more I think you're likely right.
I thought the Birds of Prey movie was alright. I can't imagine having much more fun in the weird ass Sonic movie than I did with BoP, which was still fairly low.
A children's movie doing better than an R rated flick? My god, stop the presses and reset the type! The people must know!