Should Sonic the Hedgehog be openly gay in the movie sequel?

1. 0

   Stevennix2001posted 4 years ago

   To be honest, I thought it was pretty OBVIOUS that Sonic was straight given the fact that on "Sonic Sat AM", he had a girlfriend on that TV show named Sally Acorn, whom he kissed several times in that series, and she even kissed him as well.   It's not like the show ever went out of their way to hide that they were couple either, as it was kind of obvious.  Yet I guess this author never saw the cartoon show, as a young lady for a site called "The Gamer" says that Sonic has never shown to be interested in women, which is factually not true, as i just stated.  And she goes on to say that Sonic should hook up with Tails in the game....who according to a quick google search says is supposed to be an 8 year old child in the sonic universe....um...yeah....
   
   Look, I have no problems with LBGT representation, and I even agree with the author that there should be more representation for that community in future films, but I don't agree with her at all that it should be Sonic for any of the reasons she said.  However, what are your thoughts?  Should Sonic become openly homosexual in the next Sonic movie geared towards kids and families?  Or do you think they shouldn't go that route in "Sonic the Hedgehog 2?"  Please discuss.  Also here's a link to the original article in question
   
   https://www.thegamer.com/sonic-the-hedg … explained/

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe Sonic's girlfriend was really a drag queen.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Stevennix2001posted 4 years agoin reply to this

         then what's her excuse for wanting sonic, who's supposed to the equivalent of a 15 to 16 year old kid, to hookup with tails, who's supposed to be the equivalent of an 8 year old? 

         replyreport
2. 91

   Kyler J Falkposted 4 years ago

   I could care less what they do to the sexuality of a fictional being, I hate sonic and any platformer games born of the character, and the movies are something I have no desire to watch. However, this is a topic that applies not only to Sonic but the entertainment industry and media as a whole.
   
   I'll keep it concise: If they are doing this to increase representation then I'm all for it, whatever, who cares. I highly doubt that would be the main goal, however, because it would be more likely to create a buzz for the movie through controversy and to subjugate individuals the writers and producers view as "regressive."
   
   Changing lore to fit a political narrative often dulls the final product and does more damage than it creates constructive conversation, though. Best recent examples I can think of: Mass Effect Andromeda and The Witcher Netflix series.
   
   Better to just exercise creativity with a multicultural team of the desired background to create entirely new characters and lore, and not shoehorn a political agenda into children's media. Kids don't even care to begin with, and those that do are often as toxic as the ones who scream loudest and cry wolf most frequently.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Well it doesn't help when film studios call you names if you don't see their movies or if you say you simply didn't like it.   I.e. Warner Bros calling men sexist for birds of prey flopping even though statistics show that most of the people who saw the movie were in fact MEN.     But yeah fans are toxic for pointing out that nonsense right?   
      
      Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you that some fans take things too far.   Not disputing that but let's not pretend like the movie studios aren't also responsible for making them that way.  Seriously if I owned a restaurant filled with minorities, women, handicapped people and lbgt members and said anyone who doesn't dine at my place is a sexist, racist, misogynistic pig then would you be ok with that?   
      
      Or what if I had my black chef spit in your food and you said it tasted horrible and my response to you is your a racist for not liking the food.   Would that be ok?    If you say no to any of my questions then you proven my point.  The point is you can't treat your audience like shit and expect them to not react.   It's like the old saying goes.  You treat people like animals then that's exactly how they'll behave.

      replyreport
      1. 91

         Kyler J Falkposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Just for clarity here, I'm struggling to understand what I said that prompted these hypothetical situations you are presenting because we seem to be on the exact same page concerning this topic up until your response.
         
         I'll respond to the best of my ability, though....
         
         The Witcher Netflix series shoehorning minorities into roles that were first represented as and held by predominantly Caucasian individuals causing a disconnection between fans of the book and game, then the fans of the show calling the other fans racist for their valid concerns.
         
         Mass Effect Andromeda caused a huge uproar when they began to hire feminist bloggers and "sjw" activists over skilled and qualified workers, which led to a dull narrative, a broken game, and poor response from their demographic that was originally very strong even after the third installment that was widely regarded as terrible. These fans who spoke out about it, the company called them sexist, racist, and all sorts of other unfavorable titles.
         
         Let's not forget Star Wars as well, like I just have but then recalled. Shoehorning political agendas into a narrative and rewriting entire story arcs for said shoehorning, eliminating entire sections of the lore permanently, and then jumping the shark the entire time. Fans who speak out are racist, sexist, "incel neckbeards" and they even made Kylo Ren into what JJ Abrams labeled the representation of the fans who don't agree with the changes.
         
         So once again, I'm struggling to see where we disagree at all, because the only way we differ is in our diction.

         replyreport
3. 91

   Kyler J Falkposted 4 years ago

   I figured it out, you misunderstood my "toxic" comment. That was in regards to children being toxic, when they are brainwashed by toxic individuals who seek to call others disparaging names. Pointing out that most kids don't care, and the kids that do are usually as toxic as the adults who'd see political agendas forced on children.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Well you do bring up a valid point.  I was just saying because you brought up toxic fans, and I was merely throwing my two cents on it.  I do apologize if I came off as hostile as that wasn't my intention, as it does seem like we agree mostly for the most part as far as I can tell.  I honestly don't think they'll make Sonic gay unless Sega allows it to happen because as far as I know, everything Paramount does to the character has to get approved by Sega.  Plus, Sega is a Japanese company, so I doubt they'd allow it to happen honestly, but we'll see.

      replyreport
4. 93

   FatFreddysCatposted 4 years ago

   Is that "gamer" article for real? It reads like something The Onion would have cooked up.

   replyreport
   1. 91

      Kyler J Falkposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      As real as anything posted on HubPages.... Take it with a grain, or box, of salt.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Unless someone from Paramount or Sega say otherwise, I seriously doubt they'll make Sonic gay honestly, so I wouldn't take it seriously. I just think the author is ignorant and might be sick if you ask me. 

      replyreport