Jump to content


TSS Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mega last won the day on September 15 2012

Mega had the most liked content!

About Mega

  • Rank
    Gotta juice!

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

22,826 profile views
  1. Does anyone know why Sega of Japan is so biased against concepts they didn't create? It's just so baffling because w/ other IPs that have multiple takes, they're more than happy to acknowledge niche continuity. See: Ducktales 2017, 2K12 and IDW TMNT... It's just weird to me. Nintendo's been like this with Mario of late, too (see: the gutting of Paper Mario). I just don't get it.
  2. Tbh, I'd be all for STC characters being revisited, too, but IIRC SEGA actually doesn't own the rights to those characters at all? That's what I recall hearing, anyway. I may be wrong. I know they own the Freedom Fighters because SatAM and all its concepts belong to SEGA of America. That's part of why SEGA was able to use Sally in so many unrelated things, like SEGA world and Spinball.
  3. Can I just say I don't get why the Freedom Fighters being adapted into other media like the games or IDW is such a hot topic? I guess it's because to me I look at, say, Harley Quinn, who came from Bataman TAS and was later adapted into the comics and films or TMNT, where the 80's cartoon was effectively to the original comics what SatAM is to the Sonic games (albeit in opposite directions). Still, it was radically different in tone and style, yet many elements of the 80's show carried over into other iterations, like IDW and 2k12. In other franchises, characters from spinoff continuities often get re-imagined in subsequent iterations, and it's something to enjoy as a nod to a franchise's history in many forms. Yet with SatAM characters, so many people jump to the absolute worst conclusions or complain that because SatAM/Archie/etc aren't the "true" vision of the series, people should just get over it and that their adaptation into other Sonic media would be doomed from the start. The thing is, a LOT of Sonic characters are divisive to certain parts of the fandom. Amy, Shadow, Silver, Cream- series staples with devoted fans who also have huge detractors. That's not to say I expect this campaign to work, but for crying out loud- it is possible to reimagine old characters in a way that fits newer continuities. It just takes a little creativity. Mind you, I got into Sonic through SatAM, not the games. I have a very different background than most Sonic fans in that regard, and while I do like other continuities, too, this kinda discourse just sorta boggles the mind. You gotta understand that the Freedom Fighters, unlike, say, Dr. Zachary, are very long lasting characters. They lasted, what, almost two decades, if not slightly more than that due to Archie's lengthy run? That's a significant part of Sonic history, even if it's not everyone's favorite version of the franchise.
  4. People be calling SatAM Sonic stupid and I'm like "but he's not, tho?" He was definitely flanderized a bit in Season 2, but in Season 1 he's shown to be quite crafty and intuitive. Prone to thinking on his feet and adapting in tense situations. He might not be a braniac like Sally or Rotor, but Season 1 showed a Sonic who could plan attacks on Robotropolis, who was able to compromise and understand others' plights (see: Griff and splitting the power stone), and who had genuine trauma (see: Sonic's Nightmare). SatAM Sonic is someone who comes across as a cocky cheeseball protagonist. He's also someone who lost his only family at age 5 and still has baggage from it, as shown by basically any episode that has Uncle Chuck as the focus. Also, even in Season 2 he had moments where his craftier side showed, like when he pretended to surrender himself to Robotnik so he could rescue his uncle. I'm just really tired of people acting like SatAM's version of Sonic is a flat character. Some of his qualities get exaggerated depending on the writer, but he still has a kind, caring side to match his attitude and some genuinely somber moments, too. And he knows when to humble up, too. He wasn't mad when Bunnie saved him in Sonic and Sally, for instance. He was thankful. Not all, "man, I coulda totally done this myself!" like other heroes of his archetype might've been. SORRY IF THIS SEEMS EXTRA NERDY, but SatAM's version of Sonic is the version of Sonic I knew first. Before the games. Before the comics.
  5. So how come the dubs keep changing the bgm, anyway? That's really disappointing. I remember when the movies kept the original soundtracks.
  6. The thing to keep in mind is that Sega of Japan is really... averse to stuff that they did not make themselves? So I doubt they'd have the movie influence the mainline Sonic games.
  7. What's the protocol when using gameplay footage in videos? E.g. reviews, retrospectives, analysis, etc. Should credit be delivered through slide-in cards, or is an ending credits with video names/creators enough? Asking 'cause premiere keeps crashing when I try to add new cards for slide-in. x_x

  8. The answer is simple: The Youtube Algorithim. Sometimes people make clickbait titles because it's a good way to take advantage of Youtube's frankly broken algorithim.
  9. Ugh. I'm sorry, but that fan design is hideous and I'd argue you can have an "adult" Sonic movie without making him so ugly. 😕
  10. The Sea3on comic has been going for years. I don't really see why they need to make an animation when they can just concentrate their efforts on getting the comic back on its feet.
  11. Pixel art as an aesthetic choice is just more economical if you're a small indie developer. Not only are the assets smaller in scale, but it's generally easier to produce pixel art than more higher res, drawn animations for a game. To me it's no surprise that it's so prevalent because of budgetary reasons and time reasons.
  12. Yeah, uh, can we not argue that having LGBT+ characters is forced? 'cause one could just as easily argue that having straight romances is forced as hell. :U
  13. This might be a reasonable compromise. All this person did was adjust the face slightly and it looks so much more bearable.
  14. But that's the problem. Sonic is a very cartoony, stylized character. His proportions, his face, everything is distinctly different. And while I get that they were trying to go for a "realistic" approach, the end result looks like a tiny human in a costume. And maybe they shouldn't have kept the face that way? They could still use his voice, but it's obvious the mo-cap face being left so close to a human structure did NOT end well. Hell, I'm pretty sure detective pikachu used some mocap, and his face looks infinitely more stylized and likable.
  15. What about studios like Pixar and Dreamworks? I'm p. sure those don't rely on mocap. At the very least, Paramount should've stylized more instead of trying to keep Sonic as creepily human as possible.
  • 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.