Jump to content
Dejimon11

IDW's Sonic the Hedgehog

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Kuzu the Boloedge said:

One thing that we really haven't talked about is Sonic himself; he doesn't really seem to dwell much on Shadow's words. That and combined with Shadow's moments at the end make me think that you're not supposed to side with Shadow's attitude towards Sonic in this issue. And I think that's what's bugging me a lot about this issue. It doesn't really allow Sonic to dwell on his actions and second guess himself. 

I am aware that he's the guy who never looks back, and always moves forward, but I think its a bit of a missed opportunity for him to not show SOME level of remorse, even if it the turn of events are not directly his fault. It'd be better to have another character reassure him (to contrast with Shadow's words) than Sonic reaching that conclusion himself. 

 

I don't think Sonic is a BAD protagonist, but they don't really miss out on opportunities to actually challenge his beliefs and give some type of depth. It'd make these mostly formulaic and boring issues somewhat more entertaining. But that's me.

 

1 hour ago, Kazhnuz said:

Mmmh, I kinda disagree with that Sonic wasn't shaked ? He seemed felling pretty guilty, and it's not because he have brushed it off (for the second time, actually) that he mean that he reached a conclusion. He seemed to have been pretty affected by Shadow words, and it looked more like a way to reassure himself to go back to action (because a city was in danger) and not a definitive conclusion to the "I didn't do the bad thing". It's pretty visible to me that the last part of this substory ("Should Shadow have killed Eggman") is still missing a conclusion, because it really didn't look like that Sonic was sure that he did the right thing. For me it's quite the opposite : after that he isn't sure at all, and maybe later something will show that Sonic was "right" to do what he did or that they'll go further to the "even if the right thing have dire consequences, it can be the right thing")

It's kinda like how Sonic acted when he was contamined : he said that "I will be fine I already have dealt with that kind of things before", and the next issues actually showed that he wasn't 100% sure of himself after that (with this very issue showing that he is really starting to have problem keeping with the need to constantly run)

It can never be answered. Because Even if eggman solves everything, shadow killing eggman would have avoided all this. While we take characters dying in our fiction for granted. Someone dying , particularly someone being killed by someene else is complicated subject matter. And I will posit as I posited before, a thing that's actually much to complicated for the stories that should be told in this book. Some of you might say " well what of SA2 and shadow's revenge story " that was rather cut and dry, those weren't the same people, shadow was being a vengeful asshole. This given what has happened is more complicated. And leaves the option open , hey " Maybe shadow should have killed the guy " .

And this leads me to why I quoted both of you . That's why I believe its written the way its written , because sonic looking like he feels bad is sort of an admittance to some small degree " Damn maybe I should have let shadow kill that guy " . Which in a book primary for children... isn't the lesson you want.

So what do you do, you make the guy who suggested it look the worst he's ever been so you can feel justified in not siding him. Issue with that is two fold

1) you run the risk of writing the character out of character to justify something narrative, which by doing so is an admission you could not actually justify the thing narratively.

2) Just because someone is an asshole doesn't mean they didn't make the right call.

I said this last year and I stand by this, making " Should you murder this dictator " is one of the worst things you could hang a character grudge on. And it will have bad effects throughout the narrative because you can't answer that question in an effective manner in a comic for kids because " murder is bad " should be the thing you are conveying. So the story has to contort to fit something it isn't narrative mature enough to handle

And now we are here an interpretation of two characters so bad that " Sonic and  Shadow were written Horrible " is what I have seen on every single site I have been on. They should have just dropped it and moved on, personally. But that's where i think the issue lies, just in the nature of the book and what it can and cant do and who's in charge.

Maybe they fix it later, Dunno , but that's my more after the initial anger leveled headed take

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Shadowlax said:

 

It can never be answered. Because Even if eggman solves everything, shadow killing eggman would have avoided all this. While we take characters dying in our fiction for granted. Someone dying , particularly someone being killed by someene else is complicated subject matter. And I will posit as I posited before, a thing that's actually much to complicated for the stories that should be told in this book. Some of you might say " well what of SA2 and shadow's revenge story " that was rather cut and dry, those weren't the same people, shadow was being a vengeful asshole. This given what has happened is more complicated. And leaves the option open , hey " Maybe shadow should have killed the guy " .

And this leads me to why I quoted both of you . That's why I believe its written the way its written , because sonic looking like he feels bad is sort of an admittance to some small degree " Damn maybe I should have let shadow kill that guy " . Which in a book primary for children... isn't the lesson you want.

So what do you do, you make the guy who suggested it look the worst he's ever been so you can feel justified in not siding him. Issue with that is two fold

1) you run the risk of writing the character out of character to justify something narrative, which by doing so is an admission you could not actually justify the thing narratively.

2) Just because someone is an asshole doesn't mean they didn't make the right call.

I said this last year and I stand by this, making " Should you murder this dictator " is one of the worst things you could hang a character grudge on. And it will have bad effects throughout the narrative because you can't answer that question in an effective manner in a comic for kids because " murder is bad " should be the thing you are conveying. So the story has to contort to fit something it isn't narrative mature enough to handle

And now we are here an interpretation of two characters so bad that " Sonic and  Shadow were written Horrible " is what I have seen on every single site I have been on. They should have just dropped it and moved on, personally. But that's where i think the issue lies, just in the nature of the book and what it can and cant do and who's in charge.

Maybe they fix it later, Dunno , but that's my more after the initial anger leveled headed take

 

I know the Dragon Ball comparisons get overdone, but this is just Goku stopping Krillin from killing Vegeta. And they can get around it in the same way. Have some threat later on be defeated by Eggman so fans can go "Ha, you see? Without Eggman everyone would have died so Shadow was wrong." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, thumbs13 said:

I know the Dragon Ball comparisons get overdone, but this is just Goku stopping Krillin from killing Vegeta. And they can get around it in the same way. Have some threat later on be defeated by Eggman so fans can go "Ha, you see? Without Eggman everyone would have died so Shadow was wrong." 

Here's the difference... Vegeta had a side of good to him, and eventually became good himself. Eggman has, and always will be, evil, and every time he does something good, it's for "Enemy Mine" reasons. He'll go right back to being evil after the threat has been eliminated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PublicEnemy1 said:

Here's the difference... Vegeta had a side of good to him, and eventually became good himself. Eggman has, and always will be, evil, and every time he does something good, it's for "Enemy Mine" reasons. He'll go right back to being evil after the threat has been eliminated. 

The thing is, that wasn't known at the time. It goes back to what I said about retroactively justifying past arcs. There was no good reason for Vegeta to stay alive. But without him, a lot of the series' events couldn't have happened.

If the day can't be saved without Eggman in the future, then it would mean that there's a reason to keep him around. He is a complicated guy after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, PublicEnemy1 said:

Here's the difference... Vegeta had a side of good to him, and eventually became good himself. Eggman has, and always will be, evil, and every time he does something good, it's for "Enemy Mine" reasons. He'll go right back to being evil after the threat has been eliminated. 

This is what I was saying from the beginning. Not just because its in eggman's nature. Its because is necessary for the brand and narrative. Now in stuff like batman, yeah the joker will be evil forever because that's how people like him...well untill white knight happened. But you can get interesting moral quandries and insights on how batman see's what he does.

Sonic ain't that complicated, and that's the issue. Even now right now an instance where he should be honestly considering what's going on, Nope write shadow more antagonistically to make up for that.

He's not allowed to be that, so why write it that way in the first place.  This to me, and I don't know who dictated the story mind you , seems like Ian wanted to do a story that asked questions and went weird places and didn't think " does anyone care and does this sort of thing matter to how the series functions " .

I saw this in another forum, but its like asking " why doesn't silver go back and time and help shadow save maria " because that ruins the dynamic and isn't relevant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a vacuum, it was an interesting moral dilemma. But in the bigger picture, it has just started to lead to more narrative problems.

Eggman is never going to be killed off, he's one of the faces of the franchise and Sega probably mandates that he's always the main villain no matter what.

So by calling into question the moral compunctions of killing him, the series has to acknowledge something it's never going to ever give a satisfying conclusion to.

 

Yea, it is kind of a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thumbs13 said:

There was no good reason for Vegeta to stay alive.

Veggie staying alive wasn't because of moral reasons, it's because Kakarrot wanted to fight him again.

This is entirely irrelevant to the Mr. Tinker thing because the motives for keeping them alive are different.

Veggie becoming good/the reason they stayed alive on Namek is entirely incidental to why he was kept alive narratively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When he was Mr. Tinker, he was essentially a different person. It would have been wrong to kill him at the time, but they should've kept a closer eye on him. He's plain old Eggman again, but it's not like Sonic goes out of his way to save him very often. He just escapes or is extremely unreasonably hardy. All he has to do is never be in a similar situation again, and they never have to worry about that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point still stands though; had Sonic let Shadow kill him back then, they would not be in the situation they are currently in. Sure, there were outside factors involved but at the end of the day, this entire situation was preventable and justifies Shadow's attitude towards Sonic.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kuzu the Boloedge said:

In a vacuum, it was an interesting moral dilemma. But in the bigger picture, it has just started to lead to more narrative problems.

Eggman is never going to be killed off, he's one of the faces of the franchise and Sega probably mandates that he's always the main villain no matter what.

So by calling into question the moral compunctions of killing him, the series has to acknowledge something it's never going to ever give a satisfying conclusion to.

 

Yea, it is kind of a mess.

gotta say it feels grand to stop by after a few years and see people realise what I was saying years ago when saying the freedom fighters format and evil eggman writing was unsustainable for the book

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, thumbs13 said:

I know the Dragon Ball comparisons get overdone, but this is just Goku stopping Krillin from killing Vegeta. And they can get around it in the same way. Have some threat later on be defeated by Eggman so fans can go "Ha, you see? Without Eggman everyone would have died so Shadow was wrong." 

 

5 hours ago, PublicEnemy1 said:

Here's the difference... Vegeta had a side of good to him, and eventually became good himself. Eggman has, and always will be, evil, and every time he does something good, it's for "Enemy Mine" reasons. He'll go right back to being evil after the threat has been eliminated. 

 

5 hours ago, thumbs13 said:

The thing is, that wasn't known at the time. It goes back to what I said about retroactively justifying past arcs. There was no good reason for Vegeta to stay alive. But without him, a lot of the series' events couldn't have happened.

If the day can't be saved without Eggman in the future, then it would mean that there's a reason to keep him around. He is a complicated guy after all.

Vegeta was originally supposed to die in the Saiyan Arc, but was spared due to his popularity. When they were setting up the Frieza arc and rethought some of the details to have it tie in more naturally, it made since to bring back Vegeta as well to spice things up. And when the series continued after that, both the Android+Cell arcs and the Buu arc took the time to further challenge Vegeta's evil worldview, further developing him as a main character. Those stories were able to do that well because Dragonball is a comic series that does whatever it wants to for an arc while having it's characters experience and react to them flexibly(though it certainly has a powercreep issue).

This sorta happened with Shadow as well, but since Sonic is meant to be a perennial series of games based on whatever inspiration, there is obviously less room to have the cast recur and develop meaningfully. And with a character like Shadow, who's characterization severely morphed the series' atmosphere for quite some time, it can be awkward to properly utilize continually. Especially when you wanna calm things down, vary things up, and/or fall back into what the series was supposed to be about from day one.

5 hours ago, Diogenes said:

I'm really starting to regret the whole Mr Tinker arc now.

The series was never going to come down on the side of killing Eggman, and he was always going to go back to being evil eventually, but now we'll never stop hearing about it.

It Doesn't Matter

4 hours ago, Kuzu the Boloedge said:

Eggman is never going to be killed off, he's one of the faces of the franchise and Sega probably mandates that he's always the main villain no matter what.

 

And it probably doesn't help that he's really the only villain that not only has staying power, but also the benefit of being well-received. Whether it's because he set the bar or not, the games have generally struggled to do things without him.

3 hours ago, StaticMania said:

Veggie staying alive wasn't because of moral reasons, it's because Kakarrot wanted to fight him again.

This is entirely irrelevant to the Mr. Tinker thing because the motives for keeping them alive are different.

Veggie becoming good/the reason they stayed alive on Namek is entirely incidental to why he was kept alive narratively.

Not to mention that the conflicting party was the best friend in one and the even more antiheroic rival in the latter.

And even Vegeta turning good was more a result of him being left alive.

3 hours ago, Razule said:

When he was Mr. Tinker, he was essentially a different person. It would have been wrong to kill him at the time, but they should've kept a closer eye on him. He's plain old Eggman again, but it's not like Sonic goes out of his way to save him very often. He just escapes or is extremely unreasonably hardy. All he has to do is never be in a similar situation again, and they never have to worry about that question.

Essentially.

3 hours ago, Kuzu the Boloedge said:

The point still stands though; had Sonic let Shadow kill him back then, they would not be in the situation they are currently in. Sure, there were outside factors involved but at the end of the day, this entire situation was preventable and justifies Shadow's attitude towards Sonic.

 

 

You know, unless Metal Sonic or whoever unleashed it instead.

3 hours ago, Tangled Jack said:

One kind of feedback I would suggest to Ian is to make more deep plots, like issue 6, it's been one year and I kinda love how people still talk about it, my favorite issue of the IDW run for sure. It reminds me of Archie's Mega Man.

Because Lax keep bringing up initially and now because it came up as a plot point in the latest issue of the second arc.

Also because Shadow.

3 hours ago, The KKM said:

gotta say it feels grand to stop by after a few years and see people realise what I was saying years ago when saying the freedom fighters format and evil eggman writing was unsustainable for the book

Uh, pardon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, one of those things that I think that bothers me about this whole mess with the need to kill Eggman or not was Eggman being the immediate villain. One of the comments I've seen here and there is that the Metal Virus should have been released by Metal Sonic, and not Eggman. To an extent I agree.

Part of the problem with the Eggman situation is that there was no immediate benefit to saving him. He was harmless and isolated at the time and bot hbrought nothing to the story or even drove the plot forward. Now combine that with the fact the current plotline is dependent on blaming Sonic and showing the consequences of his actions. The problem though is that he spared an innocent man whose mind just happened to exist in the body of the world's worst villain. While a deep moral conundrum, punishing Sonic for saving an innocent man is kind of a horrible narrative decision for a simple series like this. This is why I like the idea of Metal Sonic being the one who should have released the Metal Virus.

First off, Metal was already fully aware of all of Eggman's plans, and after losing his Neo form and without Eggman around would have needed a means to assure victory for the Eggman Empire. The metal virus would have provided the means to that and would have helped with the out of control nature of it. Secondly, it would have made more sense punishing Sonic for sparing a world threat villain as he did nothing but let Metal go. He was arrogant in believing that Metal would be harmless, but also arrogant about himself since Metal is typically "his" double meaning he should be able to have an idea on the robot thinks. The whole story becomes Sonic's fault for being too forgiving when he needed to a harsher hand. The best part is, now you set up a third advantage to the metal virus being set off by Metal Sonic; you need Eggman back to stop the weapon that even he was unwilling to use in his conquest of the world. This shows how much of a genius Eggman is, his limits in how far he is willing to go to achieve his goals, and allows for Starline to be introduced as the solution to bringing back Eggman and letting us see him marvel at Eggman before his typical shortcomings get in the way. You preserve Eggman as a man with limits to explain why you don't just kill him and allow us to see Starline marveling at a full on Eggman success. You also give Eggman a victory without Sonic losing which presents him as a competent threat and justifies why he is feared despite his goofy personality.

Of course at this point, as @Kuzu the Boloedge has said, I'm pretty much just writing a fanfic at this point. Though perhaps more comically to me is that Shadow still isn't necessary story-wise from how I think things could have worked better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Sonic Fan J said:

You know, one of those things that I think that bothers me about this whole mess with the need to kill Eggman or not was Eggman being the immediate villain. One of the comments I've seen here and there is that the Metal Virus should have been released by Metal Sonic, and not Eggman. To an extent I agree.

 

Yes, this is true. And that was me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.sonicstadium.org/2019/07/tss-review-tangle-and-whisper-issue-1/

TSS advance review of Tangle & Whisper #1.

As someone who has read it, I can give my short thoughts, it's good, mostly because of the interactions of the polar opposites protagonists, and also makes them actual characters compared to their brief moments seen in the main book, Tangle has a boring life and wants out to find her own adventure, Whisper is scared and doesn't want to share her secrets with anybody, I personally think they are great and there's chemistry between them.

But yes, while it's good I do NOT think it's better than the main book which is a lot darker and cooler IMO, and also feels a lot more "grand" in comparison to this short series. Also, it takes place after Tangle's appearance in Sonic #16 but before the rest of the issues. Although more good things may come from the mini series, obviously Tangle and Whisper are not game characters so they can have origin stories, development, etc. and more freedom in general.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Tangled Jack said:

...and also makes them actual characters compared to their brief moments seen in the main book...

Apparently they weren't actual characters before...

Because if there's anything people need more of, it's that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, thumbs13 said:

If the day can't be saved without Eggman in the future, then it would mean that there's a reason to keep him around. He is a complicated guy after all.

But they don't know there's going to be a problem only Eggman can solve. Hell, we don't know it either! As far as we and they know, there's no good reason to keep him alive aside from Sega having a fit if they didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Splash the Otter said:

But they don't know there's going to be a problem only Eggman can solve. Hell, we don't know it either! As far as we and they know, there's no good reason to keep him alive aside from Sega having a fit if they didn't.

The main reason for keeping him alive is the morality of not executing Mr Tinker, who is essentially an entirely different benevolent personality, along with Sonic's reservations regarding killing a helpless being in cold blood, in contrast to Shadow's 'the ends justifies the means' black and white viewpoint.

While Shadow killing Mr Tinker would have prevented the Metal Virus crisis.... so would Sonic snapping Eggman's neck while Eggman was standing around at the end of Sonic Adventure 2, or when he was vulnerable at the end of Sonic Heroes, or any other time Eggman was helpless, yet based on the games Sonic clearly would never do that. I'd argue therefore that Sonic's decision to spare Mr Tinker (albeit under watch) was in keeping with how he had dealt with Eggman previously.

His decision to reactivate and let Metal Sonic run free however....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nestor said:

His decision to reactivate and let Metal Sonic run free however....

And Shadow refusing to run.

 

These 2 moments could have been written better. Like Sonic forgetting the keys to Metal Sonic's chain or Metal Sonic tricking him before escaping...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nestor said:

His decision to reactivate and let Metal Sonic run free however....

Sufficiently intelligent robots are people too. He gives Metal the same choice he always gives Eggman, "quit bein' a dick and we won't bother you"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

Sufficiently intelligent robots are people too. He gives Metal the same choice he always gives Eggman, "quit bein' a dick and we won't bother you"

Except Eggman programmed him to obey him and no one else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Marco9966 said:

Except Eggman programmed him to obey him and no one else

The entirety of the comic up to that point was the result of Metal deciding on his own to conquer the world for Eggman's sake while he was missing. He's not your basic "beep-boop what is your command" robot, he's capable of making his own decisions and his own choices, and even if he's programmed to be loyal to Eggman that still leaves open the possibility of him deciding otherwise. Of course we all know he's not actually going to turn good (or even go neutral) but the same goes for Eggman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Marco9966 said:

Except Eggman programmed him to obey him and no one else

Which made him less dangerous actually. He wasn't armed anymore and thus not a threat by himself. Eggman was supposed to be replaced by Tinker, so basically NOBODY could use him as a weapon anymore if, as you say, he could just obey Eggman. He was just able to walk free, and maybe evolve (in a good or bad direction). That's what Sonic did with any other characters. Sonic couldn't predict what happenned. That Metal Sonic will magically restore Eggman, or that both had a plot armor.

Sonic was doing the compassionate choice that he always did, and this time even managed to make sure that he couldn't be dangerous anymore.

 

It's a good thing to show that sometimes, even a choice made according to good principle can have dire consequences. A "good choice" isn't necessarily a choice that only have good consequences in the future, because they always will be factor that can influence the final outcome.

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   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.