Jump to content
Awoo.

The Lara-Su Chronicles and Ken Penders topic - READ PAGE 164, POST 4096


Spin Attaxx

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, RedFox99 said:

How so?

Given how little oversight those editors gave and their hands off approach, it stands to reason that their lack of attentiveness helped contributed to the snafu with the contracts given that they didn't bother to keep track of them. 

1 hour ago, antyep said:

Oh no doubt. I doubt it was that fire they claimed.

They never claimed it was a fire, and I'm not sure where the rumor came from- they stated that the contracts had been lost, whether due to malice or incompetence, by one of their interns. 

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Tylinos said:

Hey look, it's an all new sneak peek of The Storm:

...Wait, doesn't this seem a little familiar?

Oh, that's right.  Ken already showed us an extended version of this exact image back in July.

Wow. You'd think he would break out a page he didn't show when he unveiled this nonsense the first time around, at least. Evidently even something as simple as that is still too much of an effort for him. 

...and no matter how many times I look at it, Brownie is still giving me flashbacks to the Habsburg Jaw. Just... good lordy. 

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, horridus said:

Given how little oversight those editors gave and their hands off approach, it stands to reason that their lack of attentiveness helped contributed to the snafu with the contracts given that they didn't bother to keep track of them. 

They never claimed it was a fire, and I'm not sure where the rumor came from- they stated that the contracts had been lost, whether due to malice or incompetence, by one of their interns. 

Basically this. For example, I could imagine a scenario where Penders had a contract initially, and at some point when it came time to renew, the editor didn't do his job and they just kept doing things as they were without signing a new agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tylinos said:

Hey look, it's an all new sneak peek of The Storm:

...Wait, doesn't this seem a little familiar?

Oh, that's right.  Ken already showed us an extended version of this exact image back in July.

Ok for some reason I decided to compare that panel with the panel shown in July, to see if there's any changes.

It's really minor, but basically Brownie's eyes are kinda fixed when looking at the screen, (the page has a bigger blue pupil at that time) and Geoffrey's eyes are colored white in that panel while in the page, it's blue grey in color. Still looks a bit creepy tbh.

... Other than that, nothing else comes to mind. Same ol drawing, with the same ol model and same ol background from Google images I guess.

  • Thumbs Up 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tylinos said:

Hey look, it's an all new sneak peek of The Storm:

...Wait, doesn't this seem a little familiar?

Oh, that's right.  Ken already showed us an extended version of this exact image back in July.

A few months passed, and Penders still thought it was a good idea not to give any of the characters pants.

Also, I'm pretty sure Penders just got lazy and released this as a "Nope, still working" message to the "Fans" of this. Kinda like how Sega gave us Forces promotional material, but barely worked on the actual game. 

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SBR2 said:

Oh my Goooooooood. Shit or get off the pot Penders.

The use of that phrase here is so utterly and amazingly apt on so many levels.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, A person, that exists said:

Also, I'm pretty sure Penders just got lazy and released this as a "Nope, still working" message to the "Fans" of this. Kinda like how Sega gave us Forces promotional material, but barely worked on the actual game. 

That basically describes the overwhelming bulk of what Penders has released as of late- the number of genuinely new things is disproportionately small compared to the stuff that consists of re-used images from earlier releases simply compiled or re-arranged. At this stage of things I'm fairly convinced he's more invested in appearing that he is making progress than he is at any genuine effort. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi i was just wondering, relating in a way to ken penders, but does anyone have an image of the skunk background character from the SATAM show by any chance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sidronas said:

Hi i was just wondering, relating in a way to ken penders, but does anyone have an image of the skunk background character from the SATAM show by any chance?

Here.

tumblr_p4j73kgrTQ1s3syw5o5_r1_400.png

There are a few others, here and there, but I can't be bothered to track them down. This guy only shows up for a few seconds in the episode "No-Brainer", but it helps to highlight the ludicrousness of Penders' premise given that the only thing this one has in common with St. John is that he happens to be a skunk, one with a greater resemblance to St. John himself than Rough and Tumble possess. Point of order? Skunks are not  rare animals in fiction, and trying to scream 'ripoff' when one shows up demonstrates a rather incredible lack of comprehension and logic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also one in the opening sequence :

IMG_20180225_065228.thumb.jpg.0443ad63dd64944e613636a5ea156a66.jpg

And another in the opening episode I think it is?

IMG_20180225_065232.thumb.jpg.664e04222324e78b9c94aab60ca7111d.jpg

People like to point these out, as well as the one posted by Horridus, and wonder if they were used as a base for Geoff or Hershey, let's be honest, who knows, but what it does show is that those particular animals weren't unique to Penders artistic choices and had representation even in SatAM before his pen hit paper. 

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tenko said:

There's also one in the opening sequence :

IMG_20180225_065228.thumb.jpg.0443ad63dd64944e613636a5ea156a66.jpg

And another in the opening episode I think it is?

IMG_20180225_065232.thumb.jpg.664e04222324e78b9c94aab60ca7111d.jpg

People like to point these out, as well as the one posted by Horridus, and wonder if they were used as a base for Geoff or Hershey, let's be honest, who knows, but what it does show is that those particular animals weren't unique to Penders artistic choices and had representation even in SatAM before his pen hit paper. 

In all likelihood they were not, but given that Geoff at least was likely designed by ARt Mawhinney, who served as a storyboard artist on the show, it wouldn't be surprising if there was a bit of overlap. At the end of the day though, it really doesn't change the fact that Penders is grasping at straws in a major way of he honestly wishes to entertain the notion that Rough and Ready are somehow ripoffs or a dig at him, purely because they are skunks. 

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, horridus said:

Here.

tumblr_p4j73kgrTQ1s3syw5o5_r1_400.png

There are a few others, here and there, but I can't be bothered to track them down. This guy only shows up for a few seconds in the episode "No-Brainer", but it helps to highlight the ludicrousness of Penders' premise given that the only thing this one has in common with St. John is that he happens to be a skunk, one with a greater resemblance to St. John himself than Rough and Tumble possess. Point of order? Skunks are not  rare animals in fiction, and trying to scream 'ripoff' when one shows up demonstrates a rather incredible lack of comprehension and logic. 

Thank you kindly,

i can;t agree with you more, if Ken can make a copy of Knuckles, i don't see how IDW can't make characters that are the same species, besides, Ken's making his characters "aliens" of all things, not animals 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Art Mawhinney may have designed or co-designed Geoffrey St. John? I have never heard that before

It doesn't surprise me though and it's a major point of contention with me and has been since the Penders Trial and more so the Penders Paints Himself as Warrior for Justice and Creator's Rights thing began: Penders should be the co-creator of a lot his characters and works, yet he consistently acts like he's the sole creator. 

I think I've asked this question before but has he ever actually posted anything that addresses this and explained it away? I mean there are totally feasible ways of creating characters and comics that he could argue makes him the sole creator - like if he drew the character himself then he and Kanterovich and the artists worked from those sketches for instance - but I can't seem to find an instance of him addressing this and really it's a pretty big thing, or seems so to me. 

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, dwitefry666 said:

Art Mawhinney may have designed or co-designed Geoffrey St. John? I have never heard that before

It doesn't surprise me though and it's a major point of contention with me and has been since the Penders Trial and more so the Penders Paints Himself as Warrior for Justice and Creator's Rights thing began: Penders should be the co-creator of a lot his characters and works, yet he consistently acts like he's the sole creator. 

I think I've asked this question before but has he ever actually posted anything that addresses this and explained it away? I mean there are totally feasible ways of creating characters and comics that he could argue makes him the sole creator - like if he drew the character himself then he and Kanterovich and the artists worked from those sketches for instance - but I can't seem to find an instance of him addressing this and really it's a pretty big thing, or seems so to me. 

Yeah,  that's how some of Mr. Flynn's characters and concepts worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember seeing something when the Sky Patrol baddies were introduced of Flynn's initial sketches and then Yardley's fleshed-out designs, where it's basically the same design except Yardley knows how to actually draw. I feel like it's probably something like that, though I wouldn't be surprised if Penders still found a way to put less effort in. And that's for a character that isn't based on anyone from the games.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, dwitefry666 said:

Art Mawhinney may have designed or co-designed Geoffrey St. John? I have never heard that before 

It is potentially so, and it may be the reason why Penders has done such drastic redesigns to St. John and the other characters he supposedly owns- while he might own the CHARACTERS, he doesn't own the designs, which would go to the artists who originally concocted them. His redesigns may not just be the end result of him trying (very poorly) to differentiate them from their origins as characters in Sonic, but also because he actually CAN'T use anything close to the original designs for the bulk of his characters due to not owning or getting permission to use them. 

Take note that there is no concrete proof for any of this and is just a theory, but it WOULD go a good deal towards explaining why he would feel the need to inflict such hideous, misguided and downright lacklaster designs on characters he otherwise has ownership of, even beyond the immediate need of covering up their origins enough to not infringe on SEGA's copyrighted visual look... which he has done a very poor job of, but still. 

  • Thumbs Up 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Shaddy the Zaphod said:

I remember seeing something when the Sky Patrol baddies were introduced of Flynn's initial sketches and then Yardley's fleshed-out designs, where it's basically the same design except Yardley knows how to actually draw.

Pretty much. Though Yardley never really got to properly draw Thrash was his updated, more consistent designs. And FockeWulf's muzzle was also really weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, horridus said:

It is potentially so, and it may be the reason why Penders has done such drastic redesigns to St. John and the other characters he supposedly owns- while he might own the CHARACTERS, he doesn't own the designs, which would go to the artists who originally concocted them. His redesigns may not just be the end result of him trying (very poorly) to differentiate them from their origins as characters in Sonic, but also because he actually CAN'T use anything close to the original designs for the bulk of his characters due to not owning or getting permission to use them. 

Take note that there is no concrete proof for any of this and is just a theory, but it WOULD go a good deal towards explaining why he would feel the need to inflict such hideous, misguided and downright lacklaster designs on characters he otherwise has ownership of, even beyond the immediate need of covering up their origins enough to not infringe on SEGA's copyrighted visual look... which he has done a very poor job of, but still. 

I wonder if Art would be open to responding to an email about St. John, would be interesting to hear about his time on the comic and how many characters he did design. We know Julie-Su and a good few others were designed by Spaz rather than Penders himself but some of the older ones are anyone's guess due to artists not often disclosing their full contributions.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tenko said:

I wonder if Art would be open to responding to an email about St. John, would be interesting to hear about his time on the comic and how many characters he did design. We know Julie-Su and a good few others were designed by Spaz rather than Penders himself but some of the older ones are anyone's guess due to artists not often disclosing their full contributions.

I'd advise against it, if only because we shouldn't really be pestering any of these people just to satisfy our curiosity about this subject. Especially since it would ultimately be done to pick apart Penders. We don't need to involve other former Archie Sonic personnel in this mess. 

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like something that might be good to bring up in an interview-- something looking at his career on the show and the book overall-- and maybe ask if any characters were his creation or design.

I mean, I'd be interested in an interview like that, Penders or no.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, was more talking from an informative point of view to fill in gaps in what we know of the comic, characters creation and history. After this weekend long debate I've sadly been involved in, I shant bother trading questions with Penders again, so its not for that, I deal with enough children at home, I don't need to be trying to educate ones online too, getting to old for all this haha.

Read a very pertinent tweet recently, unfortunate it was after I decided to join this dreaded convo.

I'm thinking this is the new stance I shall take with the Pender Man, as much as I dislike his half-truths and in some cases flat out lies etc it will eventually sort itself out. I just feel bad for those overly zealous fans that are literally retweeting and liking...like literally everything he says. When they find out he's not all that and a bag of potato chips like they think he is...just reminds me of that heartfelt post by Paul Agnew...no one deserves that.

I'll still watch how the projects develop out of morbid train wreck curiosity, and still contribute here, share my views on any news with you all, where no one is likely to be called a "kek lord", whatever that is, but I'm done posting on Penders Twitter. You guys can keep me in check haha :P

  • Thumbs Up 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • 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.