Jump to content

The KKM

TSS Member
  • Content Count

    5,758
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by The KKM

  1. Grammar mangled there a bit. I meant "IDW can (do something)", in which "do something" is "not have the Freedom Fighters", not "IDW can not (do something)", in which "do something" is "have the Freedom Fighters". And I disagree with that. Especially since by your logic, saying that the comic needs them is disrespectful for the future staff, saying that they can't do good work unless they forcefully use these old concepts too. Just consider this. Imagine SEGA says "no SatAM and AoSTH, it's old shows". But also says "but create new characters if you want, and also, here's forgotten characters like Honey and Mighty", which I imagine will be the likely scenario. Then, imagine it's a good team. Will you still say it's a soulless approach?
  2. Are people going that? Diogenes seems to me to be on the camp of "I don't like these characters, and personally would like to not see them, but my point isn't personal, it's that the comic doesn't need them and I think it's a bad precedent to put all these expectations on a new comic already". Hogfather roughly the same with a bit more abrasiveness. I'm at the same position except for the "I don't like these characters". No-one, legitimately, is trying to say "fuck you and fuck those characters", as far as I can see. What we're saying is, "don't act like the new comic needs those characters, or that it's a monumentally stupid idea not to have them." Let me give you a comparison with Disney. I really like Ludwig von Drake. He's forbidden in northern European stories as the Egmont editors feel he's redunctant with Gyro Gearloose. I think that's a stupid idea, and I'd love to see them loosen on that so the Egmont authors can do more Ludwig stories. But I also realise they have no need for it. Clearly the comics still sell, clearly the stories are still made, etc. Ludwig is extremely popular, being an animated character and all. But he's nowhere close make-or-break. IDW Sonic can not have Freedom Fighters at all, and it will work regardless. And it'll likely be good, or may be bad, but either way it does, it'll be because of the staff they have, not because they didn't get to use a handful of fan-favourite characters. Because if that were that true, the comic would've died with the reboot, yet it held through.
  3. Should also be mentioned it's easier for Harley to do the transition when both the comic and the cartoon shared staff.
  4. Not to disparage your point, but just correcting here that we know Grimer didn't come about because Sega told Fleetway Eggman has an assistant- he came about because Nigel Kitching saw the SatAM materials, and assumed, being on a licensed comic, he'd have to change the comic to fit them, which included Snively. Then SEGA said "No, you can't use Snively, actually", so he had to quickly rewrite Snively's part. Thus, Grimer. I think that's what most of us are trying to say, though. Even Diogenes, who's stated he's no fan of the FF, isn't saying he doesn't want them in the comic, I don't think. We're trying to explain that the comic isn't automatically ruined if they aren't there, and also that they very likely won't be there.
  5. That's a lot different from literally snarking that they control it at all.
  6. ... they are licensing the property, not selling co-ownership. If anything, Sega is an exception in what you're complaining, since unlike any smart company, they didn't pay attention to how their partners were treating the property, giving us Penders and friends. You really think, say, Netherrealms didn't have to check on everything they were doing with DC first? Capcom with Marvel? Marvel with Alf? IDW with Hasbro? So on and so forth?
  7. Are you really trying to snark at "no-one can make exceptions in handling our property without checking with us"? Sonic isn't Public Domain, man.
  8. Ian's all but specifically said already that SEGA would be fine with them using Chronicles, but the minute they do, Penders starts shit. So I doubt IDW would go for it either.
  9. My ideal scenario would have them appear in the same level of importance as, dunno. The Babylon Rogues were in Archie? Or Chaotix? Not main characters, but appear occasionally, like any other such character. But then again, that would've been my ideal scenario even back in Archie too anyway.
  10. Oh I don't doubt IDW might try to ask for it, if I were them I'd ask for an agreement to use pretty much everything. I just doubt SEGA will go along, and though I'll lament that, it's pretty understandable I'd say. Like Ian said, it's a miracle these SatAM concepts got to last this long in the first place.
  11. Honestly? To the point Archie Sonic did? I strain to remember. Franchises like TMNT or core Disney comics might have them, but that misses the point that the franchise itself is legacy. You may be able to see, say, Horace Horsecollar in Mickey comics despite Horace not being relevant since the 1930s, but I can assure you that if the IDW Ducktales comics, you know, the ones actually about a current product and thus equiparable to the Sonic comics, tried to make Horace a main character over Launchpad, Disney would have words to say about that. Yet SEGA didn't with, say, Sally being a main character over Knuckles. You don't realise how good you had it, man.
  12. Then why complain of mandates? The mandates didn't affect any of those characters, beyond at most a basic "they're now irrelevant". If anything, they were oddly pleasant with those characters- how many other licensed franchises do you see where characters from an obscure irrelevant decades-old spinoff media are given as much attention, and in some cases more attention, as the characters from the current product being promoted?
  13. Are you actually reading what's being posted or just running high on hyperbolic fumes?
  14. But the characters aren't forbidden from having emotions. Eesh. That's what I mean by "the ghost of the mandates". The mandate says "Sonic can be sad but he's not the kind to cry his eyes out, tone that down" becomes "SEGA CHARACTERS CAN'T EMOTE DURR HURR" in the eyes of certain fans for some dumb reason. Even the infamous Yardley! panel that was edited still had Sonic tear up in the end.
  15. Have you considered they might be, we just don't know because they don't test them in the first place? The whole reason we know of the SEGA mandates is 1. Ian running his mouth 2. the comic being so out-of-bounds that it crossed the line in nearly everything There is no unreasonable mandate. There are exaggerated ghosts of SEGA mandates that are awful, but the actual mandates as we know them are anything but. There's no "Sonic can't cry" mandate, it's "Sonic can't bawl". They all boil down to "come on guys, depict the characters like they're meant to be". Is that such an unreasonable thing to ask? They didn't even demand stuff like "family members" be removed, the characters were allowed to remain, they just couldn't admit to relations to the game cast. Hell, the fact Sonic was allowed to remain a Freedom Fighter and Eggman a Robo-Hitler and the like is if anything the proof in the pudding that SEGA was oddly lenient in mandates, since they never took the "make the characters act like the games" mandates to their full extent. If IDW tried making a story where Picard absorbs the Enterprise reactor and becomes a God and also has 30 family members who look like him, I'd bet we'd see one of those dreaded mandates suddenly pop up going "no don't". But we won't, because unlike Archie writers, IDW won't be dumb enough to try in the first place.
  16. Genuine question. You people arguing SEGA's "infamous" and that they ran the comic like a slave-owner with the mandates. Do you actually read more licensed comics? Are you aware of the restrictions in there? Transformers is the exception, not the rule.
  17. Ducktales is new on highly restricted guidelines from the animated cartoon and with the art being done by a specific foreign Disney Studio, all to ensure the identity remains to Disney's pleasure. Jesus fuck man, if you really think what Disney gives is freedom, you should LOVE how SEGA treated the comic recently in terms of mandates, because it gets nowhere close.
  18. How've they loosened up? IDW's still highly restricted in what they can do, and they don't even make new comics, just reprint foreign ones!
  19. Last time publishers played hardball to Disney you got a literally bootlegged Darkwing Duck-Ducktales crossover and the license revoked.
  20. People are right when they say no new tertiary characters have the right to appear, though. What's being licensed is the Sonic games. It'll be great if other characters can appear, but what's NEEDED is the SEGA characters. Anything else is a bonus. And being honest, after 24 years, it'll be smart if they just start fresh. Introduce other characters later, but establish its own take first. IDW surely deserves to make "IDW's Sonic the Hedgehog" instead of "IDW's Archie's Sonic the Hedgehog"?
  21. Your guess is amazingly shit from the word "getting" onwards. Here's a better one. Folks at SEGA got tired of three or four fucking legal cases in less then a decade over this comic that was supposed to just be easy promotion, and when time came to renegotiate the license or something, either outright said "we're out" or raised the price of the license.
  22. There's a human world and an animals world, and there's portals linking both that're required in the current sonic bible to never actually be acknowledged in the games, because the idea is to forcefully go "look, don't worry about the backstory, worry about what's happening right now". The only game that causes a problem with this is Adventure thanks to the Floating Island.
  23. WE WON

     

    WE WON

    1. Nast

      Nast

      great! cue the obnoxious celebration outside

    2. Big Panda

      Big Panda

      CONGRATS

       

      CONGRATS

  24. YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

    YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

  25. ARE WE FUCKING WINNING EUROVISION THIS YEAR AFTER ALL?

×
×
  • 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.