Is there any merit to a "mature" Sonic story?

[PandoloFox]

16 minutes ago, Azul said:

As Sing Sling has said, that's not being dark, that's being real. Many a kid media shoehorn some aesop about how power corrupts or how smoking is bad or why cheaters never prosper and still retain their relatively light atmosphere. For a good bulk of the 90s, they made it a point to teach children the world isn't all that's cracked up to be through totally mondo rad hammy shows, like AoStH. Does the pressence of Scrath and Tails, who's even younger than today's version, smoking make it a darker show?

Sympathetic villiany isn't dark in and of itself. Having someone doing something bad because they have to, or feel they have to, doesn't detract from the tone of something. It sounds like you're equating dark with complex. A lot of villiany in kids stuff is the result some life scarring accident and yet the medium they appear in is still light-hearted at best. Spider-Man only became a super hero because he let his uncle get killed and yet he's considered one of the most kid friendly franchises of our time. Granted, the franchise has immense range but that doesn't change that there's been several kids cartoons about a guy who punches other guys because another guy shot one of his favorite guys.

I never talked about how power corrupts, I talked about actual bad decisions and you being able to sympathise with the actions taken. Meaning that the Hero does something that isnt the right choice, like abandonning a child because he felt he couldnt take care of it. And consequences of actions meaning that said action will in some form shape whats going to happen. And when did dark equate to "not kid friendly"? You speak as if spider-Man having his uncle killed was a lighthearted moment....And yes, spider-man is seen as kid friendly, but thats because it has a lot of lighthearted themes as well. If Spider-man constantly was getting damaged, made bad decisions and never had a happy break....then it would be completely dark. Thats not what anyone had in mind.

[Azul]

1 hour ago, PandoloFox said:

I never talked about how power corrupts, I talked about actual bad decisions and you being able to sympathise with the actions taken. Meaning that the Hero does something that isnt the right choice, like abandonning a child because he felt he couldnt take care of it. And consequences of actions meaning that said action will in some form shape whats going to happen.

That was just an example. Being corrupted by attaining power can lead to a lot of bad decisions and showing the consequences of said decisions can be an excellent lesson. And the example you gave isn't really dark either. I think there's a Dreamworks movie or two where a parent abandons their kid because they think they can't care for them at the moment. Heck, there was a Fresh Prince of Bel-Air episode addressing it. Besides, like what's been said before, that's just being real. Actions, especially bad ones, have consequences.

1 hour ago, PandoloFox said:

And when did dark equate to "not kid friendly"?

I don't know. I mean, I don't think it does but I'm not sure why you're asking me.

1 hour ago, PandoloFox said:

You speak as if spider-Man having his uncle killed was a lighthearted moment.

Slow down there mistah. I spoke about it in a lighthearted manner. Huge difference.

1 hour ago, PandoloFox said:

...And yes, spider-man is seen as kid friendly, but thats because it has a lot of lighthearted themes as well. If Spider-man constantly was getting damaged, made bad decisions and never had a happy break....then it would be completely dark. Thats not what anyone had in mind.

That's like the very definition of Spider-Man. A loser who can't catch a break. Happy family life? Kill his uncle. Has a girlfriend? Kill her too. Best friend? Make him his arch enemy, then kill him. Gets married? loljk Sometimes, he's forced to make decisions in situations where there are no good outcome. And they always come back to bite him in the ass.

It's also not helping your argument in that Spidey gets his mask handed to him, literally sometimes, a lot. Out of all the Marvel superheroes, he's probably head chairman of the "getting my ass kicked" department, no exaggeration. And yet, he's billed as "You're friendly neighborhood Spider-Man." There's not one set tone for Spidey stories but for the most part, he's jus some quippy goofball who sprays people with his white sticky fluids. And how would constantly making bad decisions automatically make something dark? Are lighthearted shows not allowed to show people with imperfections? Or stupid people? Because I've seen plenty of lighthearted shows in my day and they've got characters with both of those traits in abundance.

But this conversation is just begging the question: What constitues as thematically dark?

[Killtank]

5 hours ago, PandoloFox said:

Showing consequences of actions, that not everything is a matter of white and black. Being able to understand and sympathise with bad actions taken and showing more damaged characters. At least, thats how i define "dark" when it comes to stories.

I like where you're going with this. I think it would be nice to see the issue morality be shown as really anything other than a simple black and white contrast. Personally, I feel like that would be a great first step in making Sonic titles more "mature". I don't like it when characters are shown as being either wholly good or wholly evil. I like it when shades of gray exist among a group of characters. It's much easier, at least for me, to understand and sympathize with characters who often struggle to do the right thing, but nonetheless, ultimately do the right thing in the end. I like it when characters overcome their flaws to become better people or overcome the obstacle that stands before them in spite of their own misgivings or what difficulties they faced in order to get there in the first place. In the end, they feel more like people to me and less like pawns in a simplistic morality play. 

It's not an unprecedented approach. It's been done enough times in the Archie comics. 

[shdowhunt60]

I'm gonna go on a limb here and say I don't care about whether or not the tone of a story is light or dark. As long as there isn't anything that's blindingly saccharine or woefully grimdark, then I think I'm gonna be fine.

That said, having consequences in a story isn't an indication of whether or not a story is dark. That's just basic storytelling. You do X and that results in Y. There can be varying degrees of complexity, and whether or not they're positive, negative, or at somewhere in between, but at the end of the day cause and effect is something that's basic to storytelling.

That's why I'm baffled when in Unleashed, Sonic being a werehog has absolutely zero impact on the narrative, or when Tails fixes the Tornado in Lost World and they just continue onward on foot, or the most egregious example being in Adventure 2 when Shadow leaves Rouge alone with the Chaos Emeralds and she does absolutely nothing. There's actions, but they don't have consequences. It makes the whole thing seem absolutely pointless, and I find it more jarring than when someone vaguely points at some plothole about Gerald's story or something.

I mean, that's pretty basic story telling stuff to be failing on. Nerds can quibble amongst themselves over how the physics of X don't make sense, while melodramatics can over-exaggerate over how this arbitrarily doesn't fit in Sonic, but it's the basics that bug me. When something happens and nothing comes of it, or when something happens for no apparent, that's when I get bothered. Or, in the case of recent Sonic games, when absolutely nothing happens because nobody is doing anything, I get pretty damn annoyed that my time is being wasted.

[PandoloFox]

6 hours ago, Azul said:

3 hours ago, Azul said:

That was just an example. Being corrupted by attaining power can lead to a lot of bad decisions and showing the consequences of said decisions can be an excellent lesson. And the example you gave isn't really dark either. I think there's a Dreamworks movie or two where a parent abandons their kid because they think they can't care for them at the moment. Heck, there was a Fresh Prince of Bel-Air episode addressing it. Besides, like what's been said before, that's just being real. Actions, especially bad ones, have consequences.

I don't know. I mean, I don't think it does but I'm not sure why you're asking me.

Slow down there mistah. I spoke about it in a lighthearted manner. Huge difference.

That's like the very definition of Spider-Man. A loser who can't catch a break. Happy family life? Kill his uncle. Has a girlfriend? Kill her too. Best friend? Make him his arch enemy, then kill him. Gets married? loljk Sometimes, he's forced to make decisions in situations where there are no good outcome. And they always come back to bite him in the ass.

It's also not helping your argument in that Spidey gets his mask handed to him, literally sometimes, a lot. Out of all the Marvel superheroes, he's probably head chairman of the "getting my ass kicked" department, no exaggeration. And yet, he's billed as "You're friendly neighborhood Spider-Man." There's not one set tone for Spidey stories but for the most part, he's jus some quippy goofball who sprays people with his white sticky fluids. And how would constantly making bad decisions automatically make something dark? Are lighthearted shows not allowed to show people with imperfections? Or stupid people? Because I've seen plenty of lighthearted shows in my day and they've got characters with both of those traits in abundance.

But this conversation is just begging the question: What constitues as thematically dark?

Prince of egypt did, the people were being slaughtered so the mom sent her son down the river. And I dont know what making these things has to do with being "real". If you mean that reality has more dark stuff going on in the world then sure. But im sure that in reality, people abandoning their children isnt looked upon as something lighthearted exactly.

"Spider-Man only became a super hero because he let his uncle get killed and yet he's considered one of the most kid friendly franchises of our time."

^I asked you since you answered my comment about dark with a sentence like this. I never talked about "kid friendly" yet you brought it up as an example of something not being dark.

All of that is happening, yes. But its not the only aspect of the movie, you have moments where peter is learning about his new powers and having a lot of fun. there are a lot of happy breaks like that which serves to cheer up the mood, peter isnt constantly in turmoil during the entire movie. He is being goofly in love and such as well. and in the end he saves the day. If these things wernt there then the movie would be looked at differently.

If the movie didnt have a happy ending, if it didnt have peter act as a goof nor have good moments, then yes. it would change your entire perspective on the movie. His attitude is one of the things that makes it more lighthearted and those lighthearted scenes are there to make you catch a breath from all the intensity of the darker stuff being shown.

[Azul]

@PandoloFox: You should work on that quote. Initially, I kind of had a hard time figuring out which point you were addressing.

1 hour ago, PandoloFox said:

Prince of egypt did, the people were being slaughtered so the mom sent her son down the river. And I dont know what making these things has to do with being "real". If you mean that reality has more dark stuff going on in the world then sure. But im sure that in reality, people abandoning their children isnt looked upon as something lighthearted exactly.

You define dark as...

8 hours ago, PandoloFox said:

Showing consequences of actions, that not everything is a matter of white and black. Being able to understand and sympathise with bad actions taken and showing more damaged characters.

...which is exactly what it means to be real. Showing the consequences of your actions, making the villians more sympathetic. And why can't something just be? Abandoment happens sometimes but it doesn't inheritly alter the tone of the story.

 

1 hour ago, PandoloFox said:

^I asked you since you answered my comment about dark with a sentence like this. I never talked about "kid friendly" yet you brought it up as an example of something not being dark.

Here's where I fucked up. I should have said light-hearted. I made an opsie. Forgive me.

1 hour ago, PandoloFox said:

All of that is happening, yes. But its not the only aspect of the movie,

Uhhh, I was making a general statement about the comic book...

[PandoloFox]

8 hours ago, Azul said:

6 hours ago, Azul said:

 

 

I dont have grasp on the quoting system and the weird thing is that it automaticaly fill up my response box with previous quotes.

17 minutes ago, Azul said:

@PandoloFox: You should work on that quote. Initially, I kind of had a hard time figuring out which point you were addressing.

You define dark as...

...which is exactly what it means to be real. Showing the consequences of your actions, making the villians more sympathetic. And why can't something just be? Abandoment happens sometimes but it doesn't inheritly alter the tone of the story.

 

Here's where I fucked up. I should have said light-hearted. I made an opsie. Forgive me.

Uhhh, I was making a general statement about the comic book...

If you want me to improve then I would appreciate pointers. otherwise its just you going out of your way to tell me that I suck at something during a discussion. But noted, I will work on my sentence building and understandment of the english language.

Yeah, thats how I define dark. Understanding "wicked" actions and being able to relate/sympathise with it. I dont consider it Dark if I just see a person kill someone. I consider it dark to understand the motivations of the killer and see how he got to that point. Thus showing the bit of gray in the white and black. 

If thats the case I understand, we have argued the same thing.

[Azul]

7 minutes ago, PandoloFox said:

I dont have grasp on the quoting system and the weird thing is that it automaticaly fill up my response box with previous quotes.

Great Scott that's bad. Lemme give ya some pointer there m80:

When you're quoting, make sure the blinking cursor is after whatever it is you want to say.

Hold ctrl and right click to remove the quote box.

You can also quote by highlighting.

[PandoloFox]

2 minutes ago, Azul said:

Great Scott that's bad. Lemme give ya some pointer there m80:

When you're quoting, make sure the blinking cursor is after whatever it is you want to say.

Hold ctrl and right click to remove the quote box.

You can also quote by highlighting.

Thanks, I appreciate the help.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

I think one way of defining "dark" would be not just the consequences, but a combination of the stakes at risk and heaviness of the plot's atmosphere, combined with a degree of shock. In fact, the heaviness of the plot's atmosphere probably factors in the most - it's like talking about weights (lightweight or heavyweight), and it being heavy what sets it apart from a plot that's lighthearted, meaning not just a happy-go-lucky tone? A darker plot would weight much heavily on the consequences and the stakes involved, where as a lighthearted plot would be more relaxed and easier on them.

For example, the Adventure series games, particularly SA2, are considered by many to be rather dark because it's atmosphere gets rather heavy and tense as you go from stopping a world domination plot to preventing a world destruction plot. Meanwhile, there's less of a weight in the plots of games like Colors, nor is there much at stake or anything too shocking compared to previous entries. There might be some surprises in it, but it doesn't handle itself with the amount of tension that other games have done.

Granted, it's not exactly a perfect definition, but I think looking at it like a weight to lift is a better way to look at whether something is dark or lighthearted. The heavier it is, the darker it is; the lighter it is, the more lighthearted it is.

[Azul]

7 hours ago, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

I think one way of defining "dark" would be not just the consequences, but a combination of the stakes at risk and heaviness of the plot's atmosphere, combined with a degree of shock. In fact, the heaviness of the plot's atmosphere probably factors in the most - it's like talking about weights (lightweight or heavyweight), and it being heavy what sets it apart from a plot that's lighthearted, meaning not just a happy-go-lucky tone? A darker plot would weight much heavily on the consequences and the stakes involved, where as a lighthearted plot would be more relaxed and easier on them.

For example, the Adventure series games, particularly SA2, are considered by many to be rather dark because it's atmosphere gets rather heavy and tense as you go from stopping a world domination plot to preventing a world destruction plot. Meanwhile, there's less of a weight in the plots of games like Colors, nor is there much at stake or anything too shocking compared to previous entries. There might be some surprises in it, but it doesn't handle itself with the amount of tension that other games have done.

Granted, it's not exactly a perfect definition, but I think looking at it like a weight to lift is a better way to look at whether something is dark or lighthearted. The heavier it is, the darker it is; the lighter it is, the more lighthearted it is.

Now that is a complete answer. Thnx bro.

[Jhreamer]

On January 15, 2016 at 1:26 AM, ChaosSupremeSonic said:

I think one way of defining "dark" would be not just the consequences, but a combination of the stakes at risk and heaviness of the plot's atmosphere, combined with a degree of shock. In fact, the heaviness of the plot's atmosphere probably factors in the most - it's like talking about weights (lightweight or heavyweight), and it being heavy what sets it apart from a plot that's lighthearted, meaning not just a happy-go-lucky tone? A darker plot would weight much heavily on the consequences and the stakes involved, where as a lighthearted plot would be more relaxed and easier on them.

For example, the Adventure series games, particularly SA2, are considered by many to be rather dark because it's atmosphere gets rather heavy and tense as you go from stopping a world domination plot to preventing a world destruction plot. Meanwhile, there's less of a weight in the plots of games like Colors, nor is there much at stake or anything too shocking compared to previous entries. There might be some surprises in it, but it doesn't handle itself with the amount of tension that other games have done.

Granted, it's not exactly a perfect definition, but I think looking at it like a weight to lift is a better way to look at whether something is dark or lighthearted. The heavier it is, the darker it is; the lighter it is, the more lighthearted it is.

Intriguing. I like this. I want to add onto it.

Perhaps the intensity and/or magnitude of events/consequences alone doesn't determine heaviness or lightness. Maybe, if you had mildly grim events happen over and over, with relentless frequency and little breathing space, THAT can make a story absurdly heavy/dark as well. The events/consequences themselves aren't very extreme, but their sheer number and rhythm weigh down on the characters and audience. 

I can use diet as an analogy. You either have two meals a day, eating very dense-caloried portions; or six meals a day, with small portions but adding up to the same net amount. After a few weeks, if your active behavior is the same in both scenarios, the effects on YOUR weight will likely be the same (you may not like this analogy, but I love the poetic transition of the idea of weight). Perhaps, depending on how either diet makes you feel, you'll be more or less active and healthy respectively and your weight will be determined by this. That can apply to storytelling weight. The way darkness and heaviness are applied must make sense with the story, and provide desirable effects on the audience. 

The audience is like your body, I guess -- you have to listen to it, study it, nurture it, and make it happy; you'll be happier and better-functioning as a result!

[Singapore Sling]

3 hours ago, JohnTheDreamer said:

The audience is like your body, I guess -- you have to listen to it, study it, nurture it, and make it happy; you'll be happier and better-functioning as a result!

Audiences rarely know what they want, and changing something part of it likes just might displease the part that liked what you had going before the change. 

[PandoloFox]

22 minutes ago, Singapore Sling said:

Audiences rarely know what they want, and changing something part of it likes just might displease the part that liked what you had going before the change. 

On the other hand, change is inevtitable. Its not as much as not knowing what you want than changing your mind on what you want. And not changing what you got going is treading on impossibility.

[Singapore Sling]

Change is fine, yes.

My point is that changing your creativity SPECIFICALLY to nurture and make "the audience" happy is flawed.

[PandoloFox]

24 minutes ago, Singapore Sling said:

Change is fine, yes.

My point is that changing your creativity SPECIFICALLY to nurture and make "the audience" happy is flawed.

Only flawed if you cant pull it of. its not flawed by nature. You have to understand what needs to change and what should relatively still be similar.

[Singapore Sling]

3 hours ago, PandoloFox said:

Only flawed if you cant pull it of. its not flawed by nature. You have to understand what needs to change and what should relatively still be similar.

I'd never want a piece of art, no matter how mainstream or commercial or whatever, to intentionally gear itself to be more appealing to me. If I wanted something guaranteed to appeal to me, I'd just write my own stories. I'd rather see something on its own terms.

[Jhreamer]

42 minutes ago, Singapore Sling said:

Change is fine, yes.

My point is that changing your creativity SPECIFICALLY to nurture and make "the audience" happy is flawed.

That's not my intent (though I was born with an annoying need to please every person on the planet). All audiences will be split hundreds of ways in their desires for a product. But at least listening to them and respecting all the different viewpoints leads to deep opening of the mind and nourishment for one's understanding of people.

Another point regarding my previous post -- we brought up Spider-Man. As Azul pointed out, the protagonist suffers basically the hardest tragedies possible for each era of his journey, but those events are somewhat few and far between. That leaves ample room for showcase of Spidey's humorous personality, lighthearted exchanges between Peter and his acquaintances, and happy and tender moments. The dark events/consequences are incredibly severe, but low enough in frequency that the world as a whole doesn't feel so bogged down.

[PandoloFox]

1 minute ago, Singapore Sling said:

I'd never want a piece of art, no matter how mainstream or commercial or whatever, to intentionally gear itself to be more appealing to me. If I wanted something guaranteed to appeal to me, I'd just write my own stories. I'd rather see something on its own terms.

Thats you, there are people that would want that. And i dont think anyone would gear anything towards you specificaly but more generalised to what is in demand in this day and age. Supply and demand.

[Singapore Sling]

4 hours ago, JohnTheDreamer said:

Another point regarding my previous post -- we brought up Spider-Man. As Azul pointed out, the protagonist suffers basically the hardest tragedies possible for each era of his journey, but those events are somewhat few and far between. That leaves ample room for showcase of Spidey's humorous personality, lighthearted exchanges between Peter and his acquaintances, and happy and tender moments. The dark events/consequences are incredibly severe, but low enough in frequency that the world as a whole doesn't feel so bogged down.

Balancing comedy and drama is a good way to heighten both (there're few gut punches that hit harder than the ones after a good laugh), but at the same time, there's nothing inherent about constant drama bogging you down. Beast Machines has barely any levity in it and I think it's the best Transformers on TV had ever gotten. Tron: Uprising's entire appeal to me is its aggressive moodiness. I don't think throwing humor in it will automatically make something heavier easier to take seriously: I think it's just a matter of committing to your tone. That combination of humor and drama works for Spider-Man, and works very well. But it doesn't necessarily mean it's an objectively superior model, or even the platonic ideal one should try to achieve. It's just an effective way of doing something; one of many.

But I'm the sort of person who watches stuff like A Serbian Film or Eraserhead without thinking the tone is particularly overwhelming, so it's possible I just enjoy darkness and misery (which...is probably one reason I'm so against insisting the potential for "darkness" in all ages media. I loooooove dark shit, but I can get it elsewhere easily. Why not let even Sonic's seriousness be accepted as campy?). 

[Jhreamer]

I believe there's a large distinction between the portrayal of gritty events and a story being dark, notably in HOW the gritty events are portrayed.

Let's use an example. We have an event: a villain ripping off an innocent victim's finger. You may automatically dismiss this as being too graphic for children, but suffice it to say that there has been much darker content in programming for young people. It's all in how you play it off.

Allow me to put this event through a few instances to elaborate on this.

Instance A:

[villain slashes at the camera with a knife. The victim howls in the background while the villain grins in triumph. The shot eventually switches to the victim; doubled over and grasping the wound with his other hand. No blood; missing finger and wound are not seen.]

Villain: HE-HA! Aww, what's wrong? I think I should know, but I...just can't put a finger on it! HAHAHAHA!

Instance B:

[villain lodges knife in the victim's finger. Fully in the shot. Periodic switches between the villain's face, victim's face, and complete, well-angled portrayal of the finger being torn open and ripped off. Victim screams at intervals throughout. I'll try not to get too graphic.]

Villain: How's that feel? Oh, don't sweat it; at this moment, you're fine. You can heal. But if I do this... (drags knife down along with the bone) Does it start to make you sad? Are you thinking about all the things you've used your finger for, that you'll never do again? How about the feeling of your bone tearing out of your tendons? The sight of it? What's worse, these abstract thoughts or the PAIN? Hey-hey, I'm still going! It oughta pop off at any moment, huh? What if I go the other way? (begins to; twists knife)

[You get the horrible idea...]

It's about how you write and direct it. In the first instance, the severed finger is implied, and is even played off with a joke. A gruesome incident refracted by a blurry light. In the second, not only do you see exactly what's happening, the terrible meanings behind it are explored bluntly. 

Incidents themselves do not define darkness. Their portrayal does.

[Salamander]

While I broadly agree with your considered analysis, I do have to note that, while I'm aware that it was just an example, I'm not sure if I see anyone's fingers being chopped off in a Sonic game anytime soon.  (Maybe if they were a robot.)  I think both content and presentation affect our reading of "darkness"; some content will never be child-friendly no matter how cheerily you present it, but equally you could make a relatively light incident into something perhaps too heavy on presentation alone.  I think your above point about repetition is important, too; a relentless sequence of grim events will naturally darken the tone of a story rather more than just one amidst a sea of light-hearted incidents.