Inspector Gadget Live-Action Movie Ordered By Disney

*Vicky82* · 10-04-2019, 05:16 PM

There's going to be a Inspector Gadget movie reboot.

Quote:

Inspector Gadget is heading back to the big screen. Disney has ordered a live-action Inspector Gadget movie by Aladdin producers Dan Lin and Jonathan Eirich, with Saturday Night Live writers Mikey Day and Streeter Seidell penning the script.

https://www.cbr.com/inspector-gadget...ampaign=CBR-TW

~~Leo656~~ · 10-04-2019, 09:07 PM

Great. Can't wait to see Zendaya or one of Will Smith's kids play Penny, that's gonna be awesome.

*Wildcat* · 10-05-2019, 12:07 AM

That’s cool. I liked the other live action movies from what I remember but it’s been a long time. My only complaint was the car being pretty different but again it’s been long. I need to rewatch them.

On a side note I still have my complete McDonald’s figure

*ZariusTwo* · 10-05-2019, 04:38 AM

So long as it's more faithful to the cartoon. No talking Gadgetmobile, Chief Quimby is less of a dick, an actual animated Brain, Claw's face is never seen

Oh, and Capeman, bring in Capeman

*Andrew NDB* · 10-05-2019, 04:45 AM

Anyone want to wager the over and under on whether they show Dr. Claw?

*ZariusTwo* · 10-05-2019, 04:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Anyone want to wager the over and under on whether they show Dr. Claw?

Just Claw. One Word. Like Madonna.

*Wildcat* · 10-05-2019, 05:22 AM

Well a talking car is ok especially now with actual talking programs in our devices but I just wanted to see something closer to the show that could transform from van to sports car.

I still have not see the latest cartoon. I know this is not based on it. I just need to see how it is.

*drgon78* · 10-05-2019, 05:44 AM

Here we go again

... why not have an animated film for once.

*ZariusTwo* · 10-05-2019, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildcat

I still have not see the latest cartoon. I know this is not based on it. I just need to see how it is.

It's pretty decent, Gadget is on-point and blunders his way through everything as usual, I like the sass they gave Penny, and Claw's nephew is an interesting wrinkle to his character (plus he's a love interest/rival for Penny)

turtle1237 · 10-05-2019, 10:44 AM

Its sad I felt the direct to tv movie was better than the theater movie lol.

It was like the people making the movie had never watch a Gadget cartoon. I notice something was wrong with I saw Dr Claw's face in the movie. As for the CGI cartoon, its not as good as the 80's classic or even the 2000's sequel, but it has its own charms, Talon rules, Gadget is still well Gadget, even with out Don Adams, Claw is a bit more goofy in his plans that Talon points out,(Again Claw did have some out there plans in the 80's, like building a device to steal everything in your pocket, seem more like a hassle to me)

I love Penny, she is my favorite character in the 80's cartoon, but in this one, she seems more likely to solve problems with her fist than she would with her brains(One of the few times a Blonde was not portray as a air head in media which was kinda of big in the 80's) I am not sure about this "Action" Penny so to speak. What made the 80's Penny so charming, was she was the smartest person in the room and she KNEW it lol. But she didn't have the ego to show it off. She and Brain gets most of the work done be hide the scenes while Gadget blunders though everything. She was not putting the beat down on a goon like Penny does in the CGI cartoon.

*ZariusTwo* · 10-05-2019, 03:02 PM

One thing I don't like about this version of Penny is she can be annoyed with Gadget, where as in the 80s series Penny had unconditional love and admiration for him despite his bungling.

~~Leo656~~ · 10-05-2019, 03:18 PM

Yeah, I've only seen a few episodes of the new one. It's okay but I have mixed feelings for the reasons already mentioned by others.

I also think Inspector Gadget is one of the many, many things that just shouldn't be attempted in live action, period, but hey, whatever. "Every single idea has merit and needs a $200 million budget", after all. We've gone around and around on that debate a million times already, goodness knows.

I think a live-action Inspector Gadget makes exactly as much sense as a Texas Chainsaw Massacre animated series for kids, frankly. "Why would you do this, and who is it even for?" But that's me.

*Prowler* · 10-05-2019, 04:43 PM

Inspector Gadget is still a thing? I thought it was a dead property by now?

And yes, not too keen on a live action version of it. I think it should strictly remain as a cartoon series, but whatever. I'm sure Disney will make a lot of money from it, regardless of its quality.

~~Leo656~~ · 10-05-2019, 05:01 PM

We're on like the fourth reboot. It's amazing.

Shockingly, most people have no idea about any of this, because - shockingly! - very few of today's kids have any nostalgia for a semi-obscure kids' show from 35 years ago, and the kids who grew up with the original have jobs. So, again, if you ask me who a live-action reboot in 2020 is aimed at, I sincerely couldn't tell you.

There's been a half-dozen Rainbow Brite reboots that nobody knows about, either. Funny; it's almost like some things only ever worked in a specific time and place, and can't simply be re-heated and served to a new audience. Go figure, eh?

Waiting for the live-action Huckleberry Hound movie. I'm sure that's gonna set the world on fire, too.

*Prowler* · 10-05-2019, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo656

We're on like the fourth reboot. It's amazing.

Shockingly, most people have no idea about any of this, because - shockingly! - very few of today's kids have any nostalgia for a semi-obscure kids' show from 35 years ago, and the kids who grew up with the original have jobs. So, again, if you ask me who a live-action reboot in 2020 is aimed at, I sincerely couldn't tell you.

There's been a half-dozen Rainbow Brite reboots that nobody knows about, either. Funny; it's almost like some things only ever worked in a specific time and place, and can't simply be re-heated and served to a new audience. Go figure, eh?

Waiting for the live-action Huckleberry Hound movie. I'm sure that's gonna set the world on fire, too.

Yeah, I mean inspector Gadget... when I was a kid it was already old news. Something people of my brother's generation grew up with.

I remember a cartoon called Gadget & the Gadgetinis or something when I was 12 or so. Guess it was one of the reboots. I don't remember much about it, though.

Hamato Yoshi · 10-05-2019, 09:03 PM

Why not try something new instead : DoE , MASK , Bravestarr , Blackstar

*DarkFell* · 10-05-2019, 10:57 PM

I'm aware that Matthew Broderick took a shot at playing Inspector Gadget, and, I'm still in no hurry to go watch the live-action movie or the sequel. Not because of the actor, but more at how lame the movie was directed.

I'll stick to the campy 80's cartoon instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamato Yoshi

Why not try something new instead : DoE , MASK , Bravestarr , Blackstar

Let's leave Bravestarr alone and enjoy it for what it was.
Despite the stock animation, Bravestarr had its own uniqueness that Hollywood currently doesn't comprehend all that well.

*Wildcat* · 10-06-2019, 12:41 AM

Wait, now Inspector Gadget should not be live action? It’s literally a guy who’s half robot. How does that only fit as a cartoon? There’s plenty of movies with robots as the main characters.

The others were perfectly fine from what I remember. They’re meant to be lighthearted and a little wacky.

I have not seen the latest one but that’s me not taking the time to go on Netflix. I know there was another before but I don’t think we had the particular channel then. I remember GadgetBoy which I guess is like an alternate universe.

I know it seems like some shows come around unnoticed but somebody watches them otherwise these franchises would never be heard from again.

Not everything needs to be “mainstream” to be considered worthy. Things age, balance out and some become more popular. That’s ok. Nobody is expecting Inspector Gadget to take the world by storm. Doesn’t mean it can’t have it’s space to keep going.

~~Leo656~~ · 10-06-2019, 01:24 AM

...Because he's a guy who's half a (constantly malfunctioning) robot? You literally just explained why it only works as a cartoon: Because it's inherently stupid (albeit perfectly acceptable within the context of a half-hour childrens' program).

Things which were implicitly designed to BE cartoons from the ground up and are overwhelmingly cartoonish as a primary function of their being should absolutely stay in their lane. We've had this conversation before.

Live-action Garfield didn't work.

Live-action Smurfs didn't work.

Live-action Yogi Bear didn't work.

Live-action Rocky & Bullwinkle didn't work.

Live-action Underdog didn't work.

Live-action Scooby-Doo didn't work.

Live-action Alvin & The Chipmunks didn't work.

Live-action Sonic The Hedgehog is NOT going to work.

Live-action Speed Racer... was one of the greatest movies ever made and was a revolution in filmmaking. BUT. I'm the only one who thinks so, or at least is willing to say so out loud. And even then, that's ONE thing. ONE!

Stuff that is inherently "Looney Tunes" by design should NOT be given the live-action treatment. It. Doesn't. WORK. One - ONE - "not terrible" movie out of dozens of attempts to turn super-goofy cartoons into live-action is a f*cking terrible track record. At some point even Shaq stopped trying to figure out how to shoot free throws. When something just ain't right, it ain't right, man.

You're on record as saying literally any and every idea deserves its own budget and accompanying toy line. Because "Why Not." I strongly disagree with your point of view. The "why not" is, money isn't an infinite resource, and neither is people's time. At the very least, it's a waste of resources that could be put to use making movies that have more than a 1% chance of not being garbage. And at the very worst, it's money that could theoretically be used to feed and shelter the homeless and the starving. I know that as a society we no longer pretend to care about things like that, but it's nice to act like we care, sometimes. And literally ANY use of money short of burning it while orphans weep would be a better use than a live-action Inspector Gadget movie. Jesus.

A guy whose entire gimmick is saying "Go-Go Gadget ____" and then falling down while a "Womp Womp" noise plays in the background is perfectly fine for a childrens' television show. I loved it as a kid. For a live-action movie that is going to cost real money to make and people are going to be asked to pay real money to see, it is an objectively stupid idea. Especially since they've already tried it 20 years ago and nobody cared then, either (when the original audience still kind of cared and had a little bit of nostalgia for it, unlike now when NOBODY cares)! A failed movie, a failed sequel, and (I think) a made-for-TV thing that nobody saw says, Nobody Gives A Sh*t About This Franchise.

So yeah, perfect, let's waste a bunch of money on another movie nobody asked for and nobody's going to see. Brilliant!

Like with Sonic, if they wanted to do an animated film, that's fine. That's an idea that makes sense. It suits the material. Taking something inherently un-real and trying to "make it real" never, ever, ever works, and I'm sorry, there's more than enough terrible movies out there already. That's the "Why Not." Because it's stupid, and it doesn't work.
--------------------

Take note, I'm talking about things that are inherently "cartoony", not things that happen to be based on cartoons. There's a distinct difference between things like, say, Yogi Bear and He-Man; they're both cartoons, but entirely different types. He-Man is essentially Star Wars crossed with Dungeons & Dragons, so a live action movie can work if you play it straight. Voltron could work as a live-action film, because the material was never played as farcical or camp (I'm only familiar with the original series). You can't play Inspector Gadget straight, the entire point is that it's a farce; otherwise he's the Six Million Dollar Man, and that's already a thing. A much more popular and fondly-remembered thing that's already getting its own movie reboot, no less.

Again, try and note the distinction. Stuff like Flash Gordon can work in live action. Garfield, Inspector Gadget, Smurfs? Never, ever can that work outside of animation. It's already been proven. Which is why I don't get why anyone tries to insist otherwise. A person can insist that the Earth is flat all day long; they've already been proven wrong, so all their repeated insistence does is make them look a fool. Likewise, you can insist that someday, one of these things finally isn't going to be a piece of sh*t, but history and statistical fact disagrees with your opinion. That's the funny thing about opinions; they ultimately don't weight much. Which is why I don't care about them. They mean nothing. Only facts matter, and the fact is, these things don't work. Period.

Let things be what they are and stop trying to force them to be something they're not, says I. Unless you really, really want more Last Airbender and Dragon Ball movies stinking up the joint. I don't think anyone does, though.

I'm all for continued animated reboots or even an animated film for this franchise. That's more than enough and more than it probably deserves (it was never honestly very popular to start with). A live-action film is simply a mistake and a waste of everyone's time.

*Wildcat* · 10-06-2019, 02:12 AM

I actually DID read the entire reply.

Yes I understand the difference between cartoon styles and being “looney”. I just think that since there’s “looney” movies that are not based on cartoons Gadget could work either way. If there was no cartoon and someone just thought of making a comedy about a robotic guy there’d be nothing to compare it too. Imo it’s a generally decent idea.

Also I actually have thought of the money element. If the movie industry stopped for even 1 year that’s a lot of money than can help different things. In the context of movies in and of themselves, no I do not have a problem with franchises continuing on.

Again nobody is excepting Gadget to become the next Cinematic Universe. It’s just fun to revisit a franchise. It’s been quite a long time anyway.

I know you personally don’t like live action cartoons and that’s fine but those others you mentioned not blowing up doesn’t necessarily mean they were complete failures. Some had sequels and it’s not like they were meant to be huge blockbuster hits. We’re they? I view them more as novelties just for fun.

Like you with Speed Racer I might be the only one but I can see Sonic being awesome. I’d love for that to get a cinematic universe. It’s definitely more serious than Gadget.

Realistically I think Sonic could get a sequel or 2 but I’m not going to equate it a failure for not becoming the next Spider-Man or something.

10-05-2019, 12:07 AM	#3
Wildcat Foot Elite Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: AZ Posts: 3,516	That’s cool. I liked the other live action movies from what I remember but it’s been a long time. My only complaint was the car being pretty different but again it’s been long. I need to rewatch them. On a side note I still have my complete McDonald’s figure __________________ Nothing can survive the will to stay alive, cause if you try, you can do anything.

10-05-2019, 04:38 AM	#4
ZariusTwo Overlord Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Britain, DINO THUNDER...POWER UP! Posts: 22,499	So long as it's more faithful to the cartoon. No talking Gadgetmobile, Chief Quimby is less of a dick, an actual animated Brain, Claw's face is never seen Oh, and Capeman, bring in Capeman __________________ Spider-Man: The Rescue Spider-Man: The Galloping Cat Spider-Man: Scarlet Mirror Doctor Who: Child of the Daleks

10-05-2019, 04:45 AM	#5
Andrew NDB Weed Whacker Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Auburn, WA Posts: 34,560	Anyone want to wager the over and under on whether they show Dr. Claw? __________________ [ ODYSSEY \| ORIGIN \| THE IMAGE/VOL. 3 CONCLUSION \| THE SHELLSHOCKED PODCAST \| ON FACEBOOK ]

10-05-2019, 05:22 AM	#7
Wildcat Foot Elite Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: AZ Posts: 3,516	Well a talking car is ok especially now with actual talking programs in our devices but I just wanted to see something closer to the show that could transform from van to sports car. I still have not see the latest cartoon. I know this is not based on it. I just need to see how it is. __________________ Nothing can survive the will to stay alive, cause if you try, you can do anything.

10-05-2019, 05:44 AM	#8
drgon78 Mad Scientist Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 2,409	Here we go again... why not have an animated film for once.

10-04-2019, 09:07 PM	#2
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	Great. Can't wait to see Zendaya or one of Will Smith's kids play Penny, that's gonna be awesome.

10-05-2019, 10:44 AM	#10
turtle1237 Stone Warrior Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 986	Its sad I felt the direct to tv movie was better than the theater movie lol. It was like the people making the movie had never watch a Gadget cartoon. I notice something was wrong with I saw Dr Claw's face in the movie. As for the CGI cartoon, its not as good as the 80's classic or even the 2000's sequel, but it has its own charms, Talon rules, Gadget is still well Gadget, even with out Don Adams, Claw is a bit more goofy in his plans that Talon points out,(Again Claw did have some out there plans in the 80's, like building a device to steal everything in your pocket, seem more like a hassle to me) I love Penny, she is my favorite character in the 80's cartoon, but in this one, she seems more likely to solve problems with her fist than she would with her brains(One of the few times a Blonde was not portray as a air head in media which was kinda of big in the 80's) I am not sure about this "Action" Penny so to speak. What made the 80's Penny so charming, was she was the smartest person in the room and she KNEW it lol. But she didn't have the ego to show it off. She and Brain gets most of the work done be hide the scenes while Gadget blunders though everything. She was not putting the beat down on a goon like Penny does in the CGI cartoon.

10-05-2019, 03:02 PM	#11
ZariusTwo Overlord Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Britain, DINO THUNDER...POWER UP! Posts: 22,499	One thing I don't like about this version of Penny is she can be annoyed with Gadget, where as in the 80s series Penny had unconditional love and admiration for him despite his bungling. __________________ Spider-Man: The Rescue Spider-Man: The Galloping Cat Spider-Man: Scarlet Mirror Doctor Who: Child of the Daleks

10-05-2019, 03:18 PM	#12
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	Yeah, I've only seen a few episodes of the new one. It's okay but I have mixed feelings for the reasons already mentioned by others. I also think Inspector Gadget is one of the many, many things that just shouldn't be attempted in live action, period, but hey, whatever. "Every single idea has merit and needs a $200 million budget", after all. We've gone around and around on that debate a million times already, goodness knows. I think a live-action Inspector Gadget makes exactly as much sense as a Texas Chainsaw Massacre animated series for kids, frankly. "Why would you do this, and who is it even for?" But that's me.

10-05-2019, 04:43 PM	#13
Prowler Emperor Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,999	Inspector Gadget is still a thing? I thought it was a dead property by now? And yes, not too keen on a live action version of it. I think it should strictly remain as a cartoon series, but whatever. I'm sure Disney will make a lot of money from it, regardless of its quality.

10-05-2019, 05:01 PM	#14
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	We're on like the fourth reboot. It's amazing. Shockingly, most people have no idea about any of this, because - shockingly! - very few of today's kids have any nostalgia for a semi-obscure kids' show from 35 years ago, and the kids who grew up with the original have jobs. So, again, if you ask me who a live-action reboot in 2020 is aimed at, I sincerely couldn't tell you. There's been a half-dozen Rainbow Brite reboots that nobody knows about, either. Funny; it's almost like some things only ever worked in a specific time and place, and can't simply be re-heated and served to a new audience. Go figure, eh? Waiting for the live-action Huckleberry Hound movie. I'm sure that's gonna set the world on fire, too.

10-05-2019, 09:03 PM	#16
Hamato Yoshi Stone Warrior Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 950	Why not try something new instead : DoE , MASK , Bravestarr , Blackstar

10-06-2019, 12:41 AM	#18
Wildcat Foot Elite Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: AZ Posts: 3,516	Wait, now Inspector Gadget should not be live action? It’s literally a guy who’s half robot. How does that only fit as a cartoon? There’s plenty of movies with robots as the main characters. The others were perfectly fine from what I remember. They’re meant to be lighthearted and a little wacky. I have not seen the latest one but that’s me not taking the time to go on Netflix. I know there was another before but I don’t think we had the particular channel then. I remember GadgetBoy which I guess is like an alternate universe. I know it seems like some shows come around unnoticed but somebody watches them otherwise these franchises would never be heard from again. Not everything needs to be “mainstream” to be considered worthy. Things age, balance out and some become more popular. That’s ok. Nobody is expecting Inspector Gadget to take the world by storm. Doesn’t mean it can’t have it’s space to keep going. __________________ Nothing can survive the will to stay alive, cause if you try, you can do anything.

10-06-2019, 01:24 AM	#19
~~Leo656~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: nWo Country Posts: 27,703	...Because he's a guy who's half a (constantly malfunctioning) robot? You literally just explained why it only works as a cartoon: Because it's inherently stupid (albeit perfectly acceptable within the context of a half-hour childrens' program). Things which were implicitly designed to BE cartoons from the ground up and are overwhelmingly cartoonish as a primary function of their being should absolutely stay in their lane. We've had this conversation before. Live-action Garfield didn't work. Live-action Smurfs didn't work. Live-action Yogi Bear didn't work. Live-action Rocky & Bullwinkle didn't work. Live-action Underdog didn't work. Live-action Scooby-Doo didn't work. Live-action Alvin & The Chipmunks didn't work. Live-action Sonic The Hedgehog is NOT going to work. Live-action Speed Racer... was one of the greatest movies ever made and was a revolution in filmmaking. BUT. I'm the only one who thinks so, or at least is willing to say so out loud. And even then, that's ONE thing. ONE! Stuff that is inherently "Looney Tunes" by design should NOT be given the live-action treatment. It. Doesn't. WORK. One - ONE - "not terrible" movie out of dozens of attempts to turn super-goofy cartoons into live-action is a fcking terrible track record. At some point even Shaq stopped trying to figure out how to shoot free throws. When something just ain't right, it ain't right, man. You're on record as saying literally any and every idea deserves its own budget and accompanying toy line. Because "Why Not." I strongly disagree with your point of view. The "why not" is, money isn't an infinite resource, and neither is people's time. At the very least, it's a waste of resources that could be put to use making movies that have more than a 1% chance of not being garbage. And at the very worst, it's money that could theoretically be used to feed and shelter the homeless and the starving. I know that as a society we no longer pretend to care about things like that, but it's nice to act like we care, sometimes. And literally ANY use of money short of burning it while orphans weep would be a better use than a live-action Inspector Gadget movie. Jesus. A guy whose entire gimmick is saying "Go-Go Gadget ____" and then falling down while a "Womp Womp" noise plays in the background is perfectly fine for a childrens' television show. I loved it as a kid. For a live-action movie that is going to cost real money to make and people are going to be asked to pay real money to see, it is an objectively stupid idea. Especially since they've already tried it 20 years ago and nobody cared then, either (when the original audience still kind of cared and had a little bit of nostalgia for it, unlike now when NOBODY cares)! A failed movie, a failed sequel, and (I think) a made-for-TV thing that nobody saw says, Nobody Gives A Sht About This Franchise. So yeah, perfect, let's waste a bunch of money on another movie nobody asked for and nobody's going to see. Brilliant! Like with Sonic, if they wanted to do an animated film, that's fine. That's an idea that makes sense. It suits the material. Taking something inherently un-real and trying to "make it real" never, ever, ever works, and I'm sorry, there's more than enough terrible movies out there already. That's the "Why Not." Because it's stupid, and it doesn't work. -------------------- Take note, I'm talking about things that are inherently "cartoony", not things that happen to be based on cartoons. There's a distinct difference between things like, say, Yogi Bear and He-Man; they're both cartoons, but entirely different types. He-Man is essentially Star Wars crossed with Dungeons & Dragons, so a live action movie can work if you play it straight. Voltron could work as a live-action film, because the material was never played as farcical or camp (I'm only familiar with the original series). You can't play Inspector Gadget straight, the entire point is that it's a farce; otherwise he's the Six Million Dollar Man, and that's already a thing. A much more popular and fondly-remembered thing that's already getting its own movie reboot, no less. Again, try and note the distinction. Stuff like Flash Gordon can work in live action. Garfield, Inspector Gadget, Smurfs? Never, ever can that work outside of animation. It's already been proven. Which is why I don't get why anyone tries to insist otherwise. A person can insist that the Earth is flat all day long; they've already been proven wrong, so all their repeated insistence does is make them look a fool. Likewise, you can insist that someday, one of these things finally isn't going to be a piece of sh*t, but history and statistical fact disagrees with your opinion. That's the funny thing about opinions; they ultimately don't weight much. Which is why I don't care about them. They mean nothing. Only facts matter, and the fact is, these things don't work. Period. Let things be what they are and stop trying to force them to be something they're not, says I. Unless you really, really want more Last Airbender and Dragon Ball movies stinking up the joint. I don't think anyone does, though. I'm all for continued animated reboots or even an animated film for this franchise. That's more than enough and more than it probably deserves (it was never honestly very popular to start with). A live-action film is simply a mistake and a waste of everyone's time.

10-06-2019, 02:12 AM	#20
Wildcat Foot Elite Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: AZ Posts: 3,516	I actually DID read the entire reply. Yes I understand the difference between cartoon styles and being “looney”. I just think that since there’s “looney” movies that are not based on cartoons Gadget could work either way. If there was no cartoon and someone just thought of making a comedy about a robotic guy there’d be nothing to compare it too. Imo it’s a generally decent idea. Also I actually have thought of the money element. If the movie industry stopped for even 1 year that’s a lot of money than can help different things. In the context of movies in and of themselves, no I do not have a problem with franchises continuing on. Again nobody is excepting Gadget to become the next Cinematic Universe. It’s just fun to revisit a franchise. It’s been quite a long time anyway. I know you personally don’t like live action cartoons and that’s fine but those others you mentioned not blowing up doesn’t necessarily mean they were complete failures. Some had sequels and it’s not like they were meant to be huge blockbuster hits. We’re they? I view them more as novelties just for fun. Like you with Speed Racer I might be the only one but I can see Sonic being awesome. I’d love for that to get a cinematic universe. It’s definitely more serious than Gadget. Realistically I think Sonic could get a sequel or 2 but I’m not going to equate it a failure for not becoming the next Spider-Man or something. __________________ Nothing can survive the will to stay alive, cause if you try, you can do anything.