Jump to content

The KKM

TSS Member
  • Content Count

    5,761
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by The KKM

  1. You didn't even realise people'd already replied to it, too :V
  2. They very much could, they had a reboot and a- Hmm, yeah. You're right! How dumb I was for not repeatedly stating over the last few pages this discussion's been going on that I've been speaking for myself, or for assumptions of others, that I'm working on pure preference, that Archie can do what they want, but that I disagree with it, and thus will lament it. If only I'd known that Archie can do what they want instead of changing it by posting on an online forum! Sorry for the snark, but this is really tiring. I don't know if you're working here with bad faith due to previous discussions I got angry in, whatever. If so, sorry for those. I'm not having those discussions now. I'm perfectly aware Archie are entitled to have their direction. I've said it repeatedly. Am I not allowed to disagree with said direction?
  3. We're going in circles here, pretty much. You've reached the point of the discussion where you say "it's fine because Archie does it". I say "it's not fine just because Archie does it". So on, so on. There's no reason why an ongoing comic can't work with a kind of a villain like Game Eggman is, especially considering that being an ongoing comic, it has the ability to use Eggman as the main part of, but not the only, character in a stable of villains to rotate. You then use two examples from Adventure and Adventure 2, I already said before I don't think it's fair to pinpoint anything you can write on the Adventures and ignore all the other games and all the other cases establishing his character, and of Lost World, where he has an immediate threat he doesn't follow on. He kidnaps Tails and even bothers to save Sonic when he's off to die the wrong death. Tails dying is just a persistent fan interpretation of something the game doesn't state. He alters time in CD and uses a cartoony robot to kidnap a girl. What does he do in it that even compares to "forcing permanent paralysis into a conscious person for years on end"? And Sonic 3 just goes back to what I already said. How things are conveyed. He's using a space station and a giant robot with his face. It's not realistic bad actions in the very least. The most realistically, grimy, down-to-earth, relatable thing he does in the game is just either burning a forest or tricking Knuckles, take your pick really. Do we really need to keep this discussion going on and on and on? I don't think the point can be stated any more. The comic can be dark. Game Eggman isn't dark in the way the comic depicts him as. The comic can be different, but me and others would rather, in this instance, it not be, since we prefer what the games do. Adventure and Adventure 2 are just two games of a 25 year old career (and honestly, if you just start making every Eggman moment an Adventure 2 moment, doesn't that just cheapen the whole thing? "you're a big time villain now, doctor" only works since he's raising the personal stakes for once). It's not a demand that any danger be scrubbed off the comic, but that Eggman not be altered to fit said villainous streaks. Other villains can have them, and hey, maybe if we didn't have the fucking bizarre need of shoving every interesting villain into the Egg Army, we could actually have a varied stable of villains with various angles and levels of villainy without needing to, pardon the expression, "grimdark" Eggman as well.
  4. Has anyone argued it should, though? I saw people it didn't fit Eggman, not it didn't fit the book. I think it's an awkward concept to fit the book, but it can work. With another villain. Dark Enerjak already did a similar thing, even, and it worked fine as far as I'm concerned. I don't mind darker villains, crueller villains. I just don't want Eggman to be one of those. That's not the Eggman I like, so I'll lament when he's written as such.
  5. P8pDVok.jpg

    I take this game very seriously

  6. SU SU SUSSUDIO

    JUST SAY THE WORD OOOOOOOOOOOOOH

    SU SU SU SUSSUDIO WHOH

  7. Sorry, missed your post amongst all this. Your post could've ended with "I understand your point", really. I don't particularly need you to agree with me, never really did (even in earlier discussions I've had with this thread I never wanted people to agree with me that the comic was bad as fiction for doing things like this or that, but that I feel in a moral sense it was wrong for not trying to keep to the tone of what it was told to adapt. Which I still think, but that's a separate discussion, so let's not go there). So long as you're understanding this is all subjective and people coming from different opinions, it works. Anyways 1. Comic is NOT the game, but as far as Eggman goes at least, comic is inferior to the game, and thus I'd prefer comic to be more like the game. Simple. I also think people in this kind of discussions tend to undersell the game's portrayal of characters when taken as a whole - for an example, until Boom, I wouldn't say Knuckles is shown as outright dumb, he's shown as specifically er. Naïve? Is that the word here? Too trusting, I mean. Also fairly sheltered. Another example, I often see Ian's Amy touted as better than the game's one, and more nuanced, but honestly, if you take all the games into account rather than specific ones, I'd argue Ian's take is a bit flanderised if anything. Opinions, opinions, etc., point I make here is that for the purposes of this discussion I don't think Archie Eggman should be more like Game Eggman just because he SHOULD, but because I prefer the game's take on him. (I did and very much enjoyed Archie Mega Man, even parts others seemed to not like like Xander Payne. I was starting to grow weary with where it was going by the end, with Xander being Mr. X and all, but other than that I think Archie Mega Man's much closer to what I'd want from an Archie Sonic- it grabs the themes the source tried to tell and explores them further, whereas Archie Sonic, to me, bends the source's themes to the whims of the comic. Put another way, Proto Man wasn't made into a Freedom Fighter since his character wouldn't fit the idea of belonging in a static group in a static locale instead of wandering about and obeying mostly just himself, yet Sonic's character isn't given the same respect. Personal theory I still maintain is that Ian's at this best when writing something new and fresh to him. He wasn't a fan of Classic Mega Man, and the comic came out much better to him and he had to evaluate that the property is and tries to do. With Sonic it feels he's relying too much on his years of fandom, even if they might no longer coincide with what the property is and tries to do. Therefore I was dreading the idea of him doing Mega Man X. All speculation and all, though, of course.) Anyways 2. It's the more personal touch, I think. It's not that it's too scary, it just makes me... queazy? Not sure that's the word I want. Out of place? Like, the Knuckles genocide is bad, sure, but it's also treated as a past historical event, and not shown in any detail. Shadow the Hedgehog pushes it further, sure, but come on- it's Shadow the Hedgehog. It's misguided as hell, tonally. Nicole isn't a straight copy of a dead person, and again, it's not treated for shock value- we don't see Nikki's corpse with the head open and the brain connected to the computer, Ellidy looking despaired at the screen, etc. It's also a one-and-done event- it's over, she died, that's it. Tassel Boy's fate is grimmer, more personal, more horrifying (taps into claustrophobia, real-life disability situations, etc), and it's also put to the forefront and purposefully gazed at. And I genuinely can't think of any way to do this concept that wouldn't feel off to me, short of specifying it can only happen for like half an hour or so, or that the person isn't conscious. Dunno. You don't need to apologise over arguing, come on. If anything, apologise for that apology, that's the worst part here, it inherently positions the arguments you were making and opinions you were having as wrong to have. You've been respectful, have broken no rules, and are just arguing a point. Nothing to apologise. (I'm being facetious regarding apologising for the apology, btw :V )
  8. It can be as continuing of the classic games' blueprint as it is, the world didn't stop in 2001. There's a reason I keep saying "the 25 years of Eggman", not "the convenient 10 ones and then the 15 that aren't convenient". And you're still misarguing here. I'm not going to criticise Ledger's Joker personally, although people are certainly allowed to say "I prefer earlier Joker". But you're putting a false dichotomy here because you're arguing entirely from your tastes. "good portrayal or historically accurate portrayal"? Here, consider my choice - "the historcally accurate one is already a good portrayal!" We're mistaking neither, it's neither ineptitude nor implausibility, it's certainty. The comic will never be able to fully explore its darkest implications because it's a Sonic the Hedgehog comic, as in, a comic of the Sonic the Hedgehog brand. It's not going to be allowed to explore how Bunnie being roboticised waist down means she can't feasibly have sex or use the toilet. It's not going to explore how Sonic from the future should be a completely broken man, possibly suicidal, since everyone he knew and loved was erased when the timelines shifted, including his close family- and it's not going to explore the consequences on the children he's raising that he's raising them as replacements for the children he's lost, as shown by how quickly he goes "so ever thought about kids?" to Sally. It's not going to be able to explore that Charmy isn't a funny kid but a mentally disabled adult. It's not going to be able to explore as the days, the months, the years pass, the horror of Tassel Boy's mind, permanently sustained but still locked, much as it's also not going to bother explain that surely Eggman shoved a catheter up his dick. It's not "Sonic should never be 3D" rhethoric, it's "you'll never be able to depict mass murder in this comic, so don't make a crossover with, say, Hannibal" rhethoric.
  9. Yyyyyess, that's kind of what I've been repeating over and over here. That there's a difference of opinion and neither one is invalid here, and as part of my opinion, that in the case of Adventure, I feel it's an outlier in the entire history of the franchise. Thanks for agreeing on that point at least :V It's obviously undercapitalised, but a point that's floating here is that you just really can't capitalise on it on this comic without breaking the mood entirely, and as such, it just feels like cheap shock value. "AH-HA, LOOK HOW EVIL OUR VILLAIN IS, HE'S THREATENING something we'll never manage to properly depict as as horrifying as it'd really be because this isn't a comic where you can just go "I have no mouth yet I must scream" over and over again and thus we're just calling on concepts we can't use in hopes you'll relate and find it horrifying". Similar category as "oh those Dingos and their enslaving of Echidnas, wasn't that totally like Auschwitz? We won't manage to write more on that though!" or Penders' awful use of the "First they came for the communists" etc etc poem.
  10. I happen to be a "people", and I have some problems with it, so clearly people can have problems with it, innit The point here is that just because you don't have a problem with these things, doesn't force us to also not need to have a problem with them.
  11. We're going into "these specific cartoon animals clearly weren't made to be taken that seriously IMO" territory. This isn't Maus. And I wasn't comparing directly paedophilia to the comic, my point was, since you were heavily implying my objections are just due to "paralysing cybernetics" being too much for my poor old sensibilities (I'm not even dressed like a southern belle), that I'm perfectly fine of reading things that are darker or more adult. I just also want different things from different, well, things.
  12. You're purposefully taking the wrong conclusion here. It doesn't offend my sensibilities in terms of "oh no I hate dark stuff!". I've read my share of darker media, I've watched nasty stuff, I've seen some happen IRL. But much as I like Nabokov's Lolita, I don't care to see themes of paedophilia in my Sonic books. I don't need all the media I like to be uniformised into the same thing. Give me historical drama about the Soviets killing and murdering in raping in Berlin in 1945, and give me Sonic being a lighthearted action cartoon with a charming villain who's villainous for his egotism and lack of concern, not for his shock value.
  13. That's a different discussion than the one that was being had, though, that's "and?". And in that case, if you want to go into that discussion, sure. I really rather do want that to be the blueprint on how to write the character and really do prefer him to the, imo, awkwardly trying to balance whimsical and dark version the comic is doing.
  14. Please re-read what I actually wrote. I'm not saying it's wrong for him to do these things, I'm saying it's not a fair representation of the character Eggman in his 25 years of existence. Psi's Looney Tunes example reminds me- there was one short where Pepe Le Pew was actually married. Would you say that's a representative trait of the character's entire history? Or how about the Felix the Cat shorts where he's a drunkard? Considering how through the decades he's been much more defined by the 50's show, would someone, especially if a fan of that more standardized Felix, not be right to at least go "this decision doesn't fall well with me" if a new Felix movie had him drinking his liver away again? EDIT: And note, I'm not saying it'd be wrong to do Felix like that again. I do like Twisted Tales of Felix, which is a bit on those lines. Just saying that the reasonable counter argument to "but that Felix goes against the established Felix" isn't "you're wrong", it's "yeah sure but I prefer this one".
  15. The actions he performs are presented in completely different tones in those examples, though. In Adventure and Adventure 2 he does inherently more realistic and down-to-earth acts- bombing a city, holding hostages at gunpoint. In Heroes he doesn't do anything, in Shadow he's fighting against the aliens with big cartoony robots and doesn't do anything much evil himself, 06 he just keeps kidnapping a princess over and over (but the tone's also drastically different from anything by simple virtue of the art style, so again, an isolated event), in Unleashed he does a much less realistic action by using a giant space cannon to literally explode the planet. Turn your news channel on, you'll see people shooting each other and cities being bombed, but I really doubt you'll see planets being blasted apart. That's what I mean by more realistically "evil". That's not to say he can't inherently do those things, but that the times he did weren't representative of the overall characters.
  16. mega drive hub thing is fun. wish it had separate "US" and "UK" settings. if the purpose is milking nostalgia, I don't particularly care for having Archie comics there and would rather some StC mags. Legal issues might prevent that, but still :V

    1. shdowhunt60

      shdowhunt60

      Even though the Archie Comics are better? :^)

    2. The KKM

      The KKM

      Only by virtue that the ones being depicted are the actual good ones from the start that had a good ton and were fun and were quickly murdered by an absurd need to follow SatAM instead of the superior AoSTH in tone :^)

    3. shdowhunt60

      shdowhunt60

      Oh come on now, even as someone who prefers AoStH, I admit that SatAM is objectively superior, and basing a comic off of that had far more longevity and potential than AoStH.

    4. The KKM

      The KKM

      >objectively superior

      m8

      m8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888 (read that as a prolongated eight, not repeated eights)

      suffice to say, it's nowhere near superior, nor objectively so for that matter :V and some of the longest-running comics to this date are far much more like aosth than satam was

    5. shdowhunt60

      shdowhunt60

      Yeah. Because as much as I liked some aspects of AoStH, it's a horribly flawed (god I hate that word) show. It's loud, obnoxious, incoherent, random, and half-assed. SatAM is better structured, the only thing I could say against it was that it was boring at times. If I was doing a comic, I would be more inclined to base it off of SatAM than I would be AoStH, because there's a better sense of thematics and narrative.

    6. The KKM

      The KKM

      Consider this, then- it's doing its best to actually be a cartoon, use animation to its strongest power, homaging comedy and animation history, recognizing that the plots and story are there to serve the characters and jokes, and definitely nowhere near half-assed (this last one applying to both shows, people worked hard there, but I think AoSTH gets the prize here for being a sudden show of one season with three times the amount of episodes most shows get, which were all done in a row). SatAM is structured in more boring and safe ways by comparison, uses a drab colour palette that goes directly against the only thing the game creators hoped would be kept constant worldwide (the visual tone), a bunch of cliché'd themes, plans for shock value darkness, and overall is just so safe and boring it's a perfect culmination of all the bland tendencies in cartoons that'd been building up through the 80's.

      Remove Sonic the Hedgehog and AoSTH stands as a testament and heartfelt homage to the art of animated pictures themselves. SatAM stands as a testament of how HARDCORE SERIOUS YEAH with cool characters! 90's cartoons could've meshed with bland CUDDLY AND CUTE WOODLAND CREATURES 80's cartoons.

      That probably sounds harsher than I mean it to, but really, man. "Objectively superior"? Even ignoring I disagree with that entirely, the whole point is you can't claim "objectively" anything here since they were trying completely disparate things.

    7. shdowhunt60

      shdowhunt60

      It sounds like to me that you're just simply wanting to cram everything into the arbitrary definitions of what a cartoon should be combined with backlash that SatAM is more popular. I'm not going to say I haven't seen better than SatAM, because I certainly have. But to say that SatAM isn't better, and that AoStH is more "heartfelt" comes off as disingenuous at best.

      The only positive aspect I pull out of AoStH are the characters. I like them. And as someone who likes characters the most out of a given story, I tend to be more skewed in that direction. Everything else is a nigh constant aggravation, between the crappy budget, terrible VA (outside of Long John Baldry).

      SatAM had a better sense of plot, thematics, and world building. It had more of a vision to it. That's why I said it had more longevity.

    8. The KKM

      The KKM

      Sure. And my point is that none of those things make a cartoon a better cartoon, especially when you're comparing it to a cartoon whose priorities, like old rubberhose cartoons, is animation and comedy for animation and comedy's sake. You're the one cramming arbritary definitions here- is the Fleischer's "Swing you Sinners" a worse cartoon than Disney's Mickey and the Beanstalk just because Mickey and the Beanstalk has more of a plot? Is Ren and Stimpy inferior to the PPG just because the PPG is a better action cartoon, despite Ren and Stimpy not even trying to be one? As for the vision it had, how sure can you be that AoSTH didn't have a vision? Seems to me it had a clear one, and did it quite well - a return to old form comedic 1930's and 1940's tone, as presented in clear homages like the one they did to Binky's Initiation. If you want to see AoSTH's vision pulled even further, check Twisted Tales of Felix the Cat's first season.

    9. shdowhunt60

      shdowhunt60

      I didn't even say that AoStH didn't have a vision, but if we want to go there, no it did not. One just has to look at the random and incoherent mess of design the backgrounds and the side-characters had to see it. If AoStH ever had a vision, it was pretty much "fuck it".

    10. The KKM

      The KKM

      And is "fuck it" not an acceptable vision to have? That's most of the first half of the 20th century gone artistically, then. Just because you seem to not be able to meet AoSTH at the standards it's setting up, doesn't mean it's not meeting said standards just fine. Your argument is being the same as faulting a Donald Duck comic for not looking like the Avengers - that's the point, it isn't even trying to be.

    11. shdowhunt60

      shdowhunt60

      Okay? And that's fine, but I like my talking blue hedgehogs to have more of a coherent direction and a purpose then "do what the fuck ever". Can we just sum this up as a personal thing?

    12. The KKM

      The KKM

      I've been trying to from the very start, you're the one who brought up "objectively better" :^)

    13. shdowhunt60

      shdowhunt60

      And I do think that on an objective basis, it's better. But then it spiraled into subjective arguments.

    14. The KKM

      The KKM

      That's your mistake though, there isn't an objective basis at all because your "objective basis" is actually your subjective basis for what makes a good cartoon.

  17. so why's PSO2 playing vamos a carnaval on a loop, again

  18. No, but it does establish that it's perfectly acceptable to both allow the comic to do its own thing while wanting it to have limits on how much it diverges from the games. From there, it's a question of agreeing to disagree that you just have a different tolerance than others have. I, and apparently Mister X, find that the more realistic "evil" of Eggman presented in the Adventures is an outlier that nudges almost into out-of-character when taking the character's 25 years of existence, and that thus accepting any push into "dark and gritty" using those as justification is in the same logic as, say, "it's perfectly acceptable for Bomberman to be hardcore manly and violent- he did it once in one game!". You'll obviously disagree, but that's the point- we're just in completely different opinions, here. You bring up roboticisation as if to justify anything, I tell you the reboot should've canned roboticisation entirely, for an example. CSS brings "Archie Sonic is supposed to be a mix of the games and other media" and I say "the mix is off-balance, this cake has too much of this ingredient, the comics need in some regards much less of what isn't the games because it's confusing the whole thing". And he'll probably disagree, and that's fine, it's his deal to do so.
  19. There's "going beyond games" and "going beyond games". It's obviously fine and expected for the comics to do things the game don't, but it's also fine and expected to want limits on that. After all, the games don't include spousal abuse. Was it fine then when the comic "gone beyond games"?
  20. Is "two people daring to say it feels off for them" really "everyone"?
  21. Wendy's design appears to be specifically made as an Egg Boss design. Wonder if she might not even already be an undercover one somehow.
  22. One could say some companies are really better, like IDW, but might also just be the case not enough time has gone by for the rotten stuff to come public.
  23. This probably sounds more callous than I mean it to be, but I genuinely thought he'd left already, judging by how his social media is now entirely about his IDW and creator-owned work, and the hints he dropped that he was involved in that court case of the Archie higher-ups somehow. Oh, I suppose there's the months delay though, he's probably not been part of Archie for ages now. Anyways, not that sad to see him go, simply because I think he's probably fitting Disney stuff much more, and doing a good job of it. He's being better used by IDW, no doubt.
  24. New Universe issue's fine. Some rushed conflict, some other interesting conflict between the Egg Bosses. Don't like this take on eggman, don't like this take on naugus, don't like this take on witchkart and her minions, but just the fact the comic's allowed to do something other than "sonic and team fight an enemy" makes it more readable, and while some personalities here feel microwave-heated-rehashes of previous Ian writing (Carrotia chanelled Rosie here, in a much less interesting take than the character notes Ian wrote for her in the concept art; Fockewulf being the hee-hee-hee-so-creepy-weepy-jeepy-psycho-wacko-taco! guy Ian's written some three times before already, Akhlut and Tundra gave me shades of Thrash and Knuckles), I like the way others play off. Highlight being Battle Kukku and Abyss the Splattoon's "old man and young kid constantly tease each other on their contrasts while working together" take.
  25. Sonic Heroes is nothing to go by because the whole point is that exactly because he turned on Eggman then, Eggman erased his personality.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.