Jump to content
Spin Attaxx

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

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

spacer.png

>Ian was always stirring the pot

>Penders - the person who constantly shits on Ian, is the one claiming Ian constantly stirred the pot and threw him to the wolves.

>Penders - the man who quite literally threw Hurst to the wolves, backstabbing him to get his "dream project".

Also:

 

Uh, yes Ken. They do. Because they own their characters.

Kenny's projecting hard here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is now attempting to play nice. 

 

Ken, I think we're well past the point of seeing you as being anything other than a man utterly fixated on the past and on your successor. 

This really doesn't help-

Why is it the more insight we get into his precise view of his past career, the more depressed I get? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Tylinos said:

Yeah, uh, this is getting kind of concerning, to say the least.

He's sure he has a clue what he's talking about?  Really sure?  Alright, then, let's take a look at the old statement Ian made 10 years ago that apparently sparked all of this:

https://www.bumbleking.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2830

And let's look again at the tweet Ken made to start this all off:

It doesn't take a whole lot to realize that Ian gave a really clear qualifier that Ken's contract (or even lack thereof) could have been very, very different from his own.  Heck, Ian even noted at the start that "[all] I'm going off of is my limited understanding of the ownership of things within the book and franchise."  Somehow I get the feeling Ken didn't re-read that post before talking about it, and just went off nearly 10-year-old memories of it.

Well, we all know he proudly admits he doesn't read anything anyone else wrote (while simultaneously claiming to know all about it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zaysho said:

He, uh

 

 

He's aware Sonic wasn't a comic first, right

In theory, yes. 

In practice though the only real relevance he places on Sonic is the comic series he worked on, and as such only really processes it in the context of it being a comic book without much thought to the actual games from which ALL of Sonic flows. He once mentioned that there were at best 'only a couple dozen' Sonic games in total.

So yeah he just uh... refuses to really accept that Sonic is first and foremost a game franchise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, horridus said:

 

 

Next thing Ken is going to do is go and attempt to be the editor in chief of Marvel and DC because "Sonic introduced kids to their characters" so "he has the right".

I watched Iron Man in 2008 at 8 years old before I knew what a Sonic was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Tylinos said:

It's almost kind of impressive how he sounds more and more bitter every time he brings up Ian.

Also, Ken, this really isn't hard to piece together.  You pretty much just said it yourself; A large number of people think Ian wrote your characters better than you did, feel you wrote them poorly, and are upset that the person who wrote them poorly snatched them away and began ranting about how awful he thinks the writer many people prefer is.

Though I can't say I'm surprised you think it's "sheer lunacy" that people would prefer another writer over you, especially when you keep going on about how you think only the original creator should ever matter regardless of quality.  Well, except when it comes to a later writer who you think did a better job, like how you always say movie adaptations of comics make the originals irrelevant.  Or how you act like you wrote Sonic characters better than their original creators.

By the analogy he's using (probably the most childish one he could've used), I read it as him saying that it's sheer lunacy because people should've expected him to react spitefully after all those years of being told how much better Ian wrote them. "You like my characters under Ian's writing? Fine, you don't get to enjoy them anymore."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sheer lunacy for people to think Ian used your characters better than you?  Hilarious.  I bet you didn't think it was sheer lunacy when you called yourself the "savior" of the series.  Jeez.  And you wonder why the entire fanbase minus your fanboys look down on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Tylinos said:

It's almost kind of impressive how he sounds more and more bitter every time he brings up Ian.

Also, Ken, this really isn't hard to piece together.  You pretty much just said it yourself; A large number of people think Ian wrote your characters better than you did, feel you wrote them poorly, and are upset that the person who wrote them poorly snatched them away and began ranting about how awful he thinks the writer many people prefer is.

Though I can't say I'm surprised you think it's "sheer lunacy" that people would prefer another writer over you, especially when you keep going on about how you think only the original creator should ever matter regardless of quality.  Well, except when it comes to a later writer who you think did a better job, like how you always say movie adaptations of comics make the originals irrelevant.  Or how you act like you wrote Sonic characters better than their original creators.

Man, he is just FIXATED on Ian this week isn't he? 

But yeah. People have in fact tried to explain why they liked Ian's version over his to him in the past, multiple times at that. Each and every time he has ignored them, and at times even insulted their intelligence. And that's without getting into the fact that he has not, to my knowledge, ever actually read any of Flynn's run and all of his knowledge of it ultimately comes from secondhand sources- namely his fanboys, who are naturally about as objective as Penders himself regarding anything that violates his precious status quo. 

You could probably explain the precise logic of why they're upset with him for taking away the well written version of the characters they enjoyed, but as with any and all attempts to reason with him, it's quite futile. Nothing can get through that all-cosuming black hole that is his ego. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Tenth Doctor said:

Okay I'll give it a go.

Under Ken's pen, Geoffery St John was a sexual predator who was an asshole for the sake of it. Under Ian's pen he had reasons added for being a dick, even regretted it and felt ashamed on how his marriage went. Under Ken's pen, Evil Sonic was an annoyance who came in to sleep with anyone he could. Under Ian's pen, he changed his identity, had an identity crisis, became a threat and became a one woman guy (from the looks of it). Under Ken's pen, Locke was a monster who microwaved his son, abandoned him, showed no love in his heart, yet we kept being told he was a good father. Under Ian's pen, Locke realised his mistakes (not without almost doing one more, but he realised it) and pleaded with the Master Emerald to give his son a life, in exchange for his.

If I recall, Ken has stated he intended to write these 3 characters the exact same way he always did if he continued. He was offended Locke died heroically and wanted him to die a disgruntled old man, filled with cancer (I think it was cancer, right?). He has made it clear Ian never got Geoffery, which is why Geoffery's libido is never mentioned any more. He says Scourge was better as a petty mimic, rather than a fleshed out character. I will never understand this abstract of a human being, he is too far gone in the dark pit of ego to even remember what humility is.

Just great.  He's contradicted himself so much that he made both of us contradict ourselves.  Why do we even bother wasting our time trying to understand him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never liked Geoffrey under Penders. When he wasn't just grabbing Sally and kissing her he was always arguing with someone before trading blows. I'm glad Karl had him settle down with Hershey and under Ian it made sense for him and Sonic to be at odds what with the Naugus betrayal.

As for the Ian Flynn you'd think Mr. Flynn was outside Pen's window taunting him with how much he brought him up these past few days. For the love of Sonic just get off of Mr.Flynn's back, work on your Lara-Su Chronicles even!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, horridus said:

Man, he is just FIXATED on Ian this week isn't he? 

But yeah. People have in fact tried to explain why they liked Ian's version over his to him in the past, multiple times at that. Each and every time he has ignored them, and at times even insulted their intelligence. And that's without getting into the fact that he has not, to my knowledge, ever actually read any of Flynn's run and all of his knowledge of it ultimately comes from secondhand sources- namely his fanboys, who are naturally about as objective as Penders himself regarding anything that violates his precious status quo. 

You could probably explain the precise logic of why they're upset with him for taking away the well written version of the characters they enjoyed, but as with any and all attempts to reason with him, it's quite futile. Nothing can get through that all-cosuming black hole that is his ego. 

At this point man, I think he has to keep doing it because he's far too invested in himself to turn back.  Deep down, I think he knows Ian is a better writer than him, but his ego is too great to admit it.  Also when people prove him wrong, he either gets very upset or doubles down.  Why?  Because he never considers the possibility of him being wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, The Tenth Doctor said:

Under Ken's pen, Locke was a monster who microwaved his son, abandoned him, showed no love in his heart, yet we kept being told he was a good father. Under Ian's pen, Locke realised his mistakes (not without almost doing one more, but he realised it) and pleaded with the Master Emerald to give his son a life, in exchange for his.

If I recall, Ken has stated he intended to write these 3 characters the exact same way he always did if he continued. He was offended Locke died heroically and wanted him to die a disgruntled old man, filled with cancer (I think it was cancer, right?).

While I'll in no way defend Penders for his recent outbursts and many of the claims he's made over the years - I will always be a bit understanding about the situation with Locke. Locke and Knuckles' relationship was made in the image of Penders' relationship with his own father and all the mixed feelings he had about it. Locke's death in Mobius 25 Years Later in particular was a direct parallel to his father's death and the story in question is dedicated to him. Whatever opinion you have about Locke as a character or as a parent to Knuckles, there's no denying that Penders has good reason to be personally attached to that character, dynamic, and story. I'm also of the opinion Ian wrote the Penders cast better than Penders himself did, and I have no issues with Locke's death in STH 184. But I can understand Penders feeling hurt about that particular change from a personal perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Zonic 2099 said:

I never liked Geoffrey under Penders. When he wasn't just grabbing Sally and kissing her he was always arguing with someone before trading blows. I'm glad Karl had him settle down with Hershey and under Ian it made sense for him and Sonic to be at odds what with the Naugus betrayal.

As for the Ian Flynn you'd think Mr. Flynn was outside Pen's window taunting him with how much he brought him up these past few days. For the love of Sonic just get off of Mr.Flynn's back, work on your Lara-Su Chronicles even!

 

I now have the image of ian and jon doing the jojo torture dance with the music playing outside his window while the music plays while he angrily tweets

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GentlemanX said:

While I'll in no way defend Penders for his recent outbursts and many of the claims he's made over the years - I will always be a bit understanding about the situation with Locke. Locke and Knuckles' relationship was made in the image of Penders' relationship with his own father and all the mixed feelings he had about it. Locke's death in Mobius 25 Years Later in particular was a direct parallel to his father's death and the story in question is dedicated to him. Whatever opinion you have about Locke as a character or as a parent to Knuckles, there's no denying that Penders has good reason to be personally attached to that character, dynamic, and story. I'm also of the opinion Ian wrote the Penders cast better than Penders himself did, and I have no issues with Locke's death in STH 184. But I can understand Penders feeling hurt about that particular change from a personal perspective.

 

You're very right. I'd heard of that and I do have sympathy for him there. I have a bad relationship with my Dad and I can understand how it can manipulate what you do. It just didn't do him good to write a character into Sonic that was like him. It meant that the character would have to be kept in a glass box and kept exactly like his Dad to appease him. Its a very dangerous game writing your life into a story, especially when you are not guaranteed to have 100% control of the story forever. When he came in Ian didn't know Ken's Dad, he could never write him exactly the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, GentlemanX said:

While I'll in no way defend Penders for his recent outbursts and many of the claims he's made over the years - I will always be a bit understanding about the situation with Locke. Locke and Knuckles' relationship was made in the image of Penders' relationship with his own father and all the mixed feelings he had about it. Locke's death in Mobius 25 Years Later in particular was a direct parallel to his father's death and the story in question is dedicated to him. Whatever opinion you have about Locke as a character or as a parent to Knuckles, there's no denying that Penders has good reason to be personally attached to that character, dynamic, and story. I'm also of the opinion Ian wrote the Penders cast better than Penders himself did, and I have no issues with Locke's death in STH 184. But I can understand Penders feeling hurt about that particular change from a personal perspective.

A part of me agrees. Another part of me can't help but feel that Penders really, really shouldn't have put THAT much of himself and his life into a licensed children's book meant to promote a video game series. Regardless of what Penders claims regarding his copyrights and so forth, he could not have honestly expected to go into the book and that everything he made would be inviolable now and forever. That he invested so much of himself emotionally into Locke and chose to make him the crux of all his baggage regarding his own father, in a book that wasn't in, using a character that as far as he knew could always be used by others as they saw fit once he was gone is... baffling, to the point of being downright foolish. 

Like, I do get WHY he's so attached, but I feel like he never should have used his life, especially such an intimate part of it, as fodder for a book where everything could be subjected to the whim of other writers at any time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GentlemanX said:

While I'll in no way defend Penders for his recent outbursts and many of the claims he's made over the years - I will always be a bit understanding about the situation with Locke. Locke and Knuckles' relationship was made in the image of Penders' relationship with his own father and all the mixed feelings he had about it. Locke's death in Mobius 25 Years Later in particular was a direct parallel to his father's death and the story in question is dedicated to him. Whatever opinion you have about Locke as a character or as a parent to Knuckles, there's no denying that Penders has good reason to be personally attached to that character, dynamic, and story. I'm also of the opinion Ian wrote the Penders cast better than Penders himself did, and I have no issues with Locke's death in STH 184. But I can understand Penders feeling hurt about that particular change from a personal perspective.

He did it to himself, by being so adamant that 25 Years Later was The One & Only True Future of the Franchise. 

The death he wrote for Locke was never undone... except when the whole of everything was undone because they had to reboot, even though he'll argue until he's blue in the face that they never "had" to do it.

1 hour ago, horridus said:

A part of me agrees. Another part of me can't help but feel that Penders really, really shouldn't have put THAT much of himself and his life into a licensed children's book meant to promote a video game series. Regardless of what Penders claims regarding his copyrights and so forth, he could not have honestly expected to go into the book and that everything he made would be inviolable now and forever. That he invested so much of himself emotionally into Locke and chose to make him the crux of all his baggage regarding his own father, in a book that wasn't in, using a character that as far as he knew could always be used by others as they saw fit once he was gone is... baffling, to the point of being downright foolish. 

Like, I do get WHY he's so attached, but I feel like he never should have used his life, especially such an intimate part of it, as fodder for a book where everything could be subjected to the whim of other writers at any time. 

And yet, to hear the man speak, that's precisely what he expected.

Then again, this guy is a walking ball of contradictions. He'll talk about how Archie -- or maybe specifically Ian -- shouldn't be using the stuff he brought to the picnic, then turn around and complain about their removal.

There is no realistically pleasing him. And maybe if he spent half as much time writing about Lara-Su as he does about Ian and Sonic, he might have a product by now. 

Maybe the upside for him is his subconscious doing him a favor: By taking so long to release anything that nobody cares anymore and driving away any remaining fans he had left, he gets to save face by not having anyone see the mess he left on the rug -- er, bookshelf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KingScoopaKoopa said:

Maybe the upside for him is his subconscious doing him a favor: By taking so long to release anything that nobody cares anymore and driving away any remaining fans he had left, he gets to save face by not having anyone see the mess he left on the rug -- er, bookshelf.

He'd probably still call it a success and just let these characters fade into obscurity rather than let them stay in the safe confines of legal limbo like the Freedom Fighters and other DiC cartoon properties.

No matter how bitter he is on what happened with Archie, it's entirely his own fault. No matter how much he wants to throw shade at Ian, he chose to walk out rather than listen to his editor. He chose to ask for too much in exchange for characters Archie frankly doesn't need even IF some of them were fan favorites. If he wanted to keep writing for the comic he should have tried to reach a compromise or actually do as Mike said rather than quit and expect Archie to beg him to come back like Gabe did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • 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.